title: Case C-559/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — Deli Ostrich NV v Belgische Staat (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Frozen camel meat not from farm-raised animals — Classification under subheading 02089040 (other game meat) or 02089095 (other))

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/15

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — Deli Ostrich NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-559/10) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Frozen camel meat not from farm-raised animals - Classification under subheading 0208 90 40 (other game meat) or 0208 90 95 (other))
   2011/C 370/24
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deli Ostrich NV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Camel meat not from farm-raised animals — Classification under subheading 0208 90 40 (game) or 0208 90 95 (other)?

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Combined Nomenclature constituting Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that camel meat must be classified under subheading 0208 90 40 as ‘other game meat’ if the camels from which that meat comes lived in the wild and were hunted.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.


title: Case C-370/09: Action brought on 15 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/50

         Action brought on 15 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-370/09)
   2009/C 267/83
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Margeli and M. Karanasou Apostolopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, or in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2006/21/EC into domestic law expired on 1 May 2008.

      (1)  OJ No L 102 of 11.4.2006, p. 15.


title: Case C-668/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava (România) lodged on 16 December 2013 — Casa Județeană de Pensii Botoșani v Evangeli Paraskevopoulou

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava (România) lodged on 16 December 2013 — Casa Județeană de Pensii Botoșani v Evangeli Paraskevopoulou
   (Case C-668/13)
   2014/C 85/23
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Suceava

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Casa Județeană de Pensii Botoșani

      Defendant: Evangeli Paraskevopoulou

      Question referred

   Is Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) to be interpreted as including within its scope a bilateral agreement which two Member States entered into before the date on which that regulation became applicable and by which the two states agreed to the termination of obligations relating to social security benefits owed by one State to nationals of the other State who had been political refugees in the territory of the first State and who have been repatriated to the territory of the second State, in exchange for a payment by the first State of a lump sum for the payment of pensions and to cover periods during which social security contributions were paid in the first Member State?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).


title: Case C-332/08: Order of the President of the Court of 19 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 19 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-332/08) (1)

   2009/C 113/58

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 November 2001 in Case C-427/00: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Quality of bathing water — Inadequate compliance with Directive 76/160/EEC)

text:
5.1.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 3/11
      —    that the authorised retailers and wholesalers have not                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
           imposed on their own purchasers contractual reservations
           setting out such opposition, even though they have been
           informed of it by the trade mark proprietor.                                              (Third Chamber)
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000; OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                                of 13 November 2001
                                                                           in Case C-427/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                   Quality of bathing water — Inadequate compliance with
                                                                                Directive 76/160/EEC)
                      of 27 September 2001
                                                                                (2002/C 3/15)
in Case C-442/99 P: Cordis Obst und Gemüse Grosshandel
                             GmbH (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Appeal — Common organisation of the market — Bananas
— Imports from ACP States and third countries — Request
for import licences — Transitional measures — Regulation
      (EEC) No 404/93 — Principle of equal treatment)
                           (2002/C 3/14)                                   In Case C-427/00: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agent: R.B. Wainwright) v United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                           and Northern Ireland (Agent: G. Amodeo, assisted by D. Wyatt)
                   (Language of the case: German)                          — application for a declaration that by failing to ensure that
                                                                           bathing water in the United Kingdom complies with the limit
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     values set in accordance with Article 3 of Council Directive
                   in the European Court Reports)                          76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of
                                                                           bathing water (OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1), the United Kingdom has
                                                                           failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive — the Court
                                                                           (Third Chamber), composed of. C. Gulmann, acting for the
In Case C-442/99 P: Cordis Obst und Gemüse Grosshandel                     President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha
GmbH, established in Ostrau (Germany), (Rechtsanwalt:                      Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
G. Meier) — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First              Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) in                    on 13 November 2001, in which it:
Case T-612/97 Cordis v Commission [1999] ECR II-2771,
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties
to the proceedings being: Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: K.-D. Borchardt) and French Republic                   1.    Declares that, since it has not ensured that bathing water
(Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Vasak) — the Court                           complied with the limit values set in accordance with Article 3
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the                       of Council Directive 761160/EEC of 8 December 1975,
Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric and                         concerning the quality of bathing water, the United Kingdom
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate                   of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar,                   obligations under that Directive.
has given a judgment on 27 September 2001, in which it:
                                                                           2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                      Ireland to pay the costs.
2.    Orders Cordis Obst und Gemüse Grosshiandel to pay the costs;
3.    Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.


title: Case F-24/10: Action brought on 21 April 2010 — Kaskarelis v Commission

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/58

      Action brought on 21 April 2010 — Kaskarelis v Commission
      (Case F-24/10)
      (2010/C 161/94)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Loukas Kaskarelis (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      Annulment of the defendant's decision refusing to grant the applicant an expatriation allowance, an installation allowance and reimbursement of travel expenses.

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) refusing to grant an expatriation allowance, an installation allowance and reimbursement of travel expenses and the decision of the Authority authorised to conclude contracts rejecting the applicant's complaint;

                  —

                  Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-312/08: Action brought on 13 August 2008 — Ellinikos Niognomon v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/33

         Action brought on 13 August 2008 — Ellinikos Niognomon v Commission
   (Case T-312/08)
   (2008/C 272/60)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ellinikos Niognomon AE (Piraeus, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the contested decision null and void;

               —

               Condemn the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By way of its application pursuant to Article 230 EC, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission's decision of 24 July 2008, by which it decided not to extend the applicant's limited recognition which it was granted under Directive 94/57/EC (1) by Commission Decision 2001/890/EC (2) and which was further extended by Commission Decision 2005/623/EC (3) of 3 August 2005.
   The applicant, first, claims that the contested decision infringes an essential procedural requirement by not having followed the comitology procedure provided for in Articles 4 and 9 of Directive 94/57/EC.
   Second, the applicant submits that the refusal to grant extension of the limited recognition is based on assessments carried out exclusively by the Commission and not jointly with the respective Member States according to Articles 4, 9 and 11 of Directive 94/57/EC.
   Third, the applicant argues that the contested decision does not respect the applicant's rights of defence and is contrary to its legal expectations.
   Fourth, the applicant contends that the contested decision infringes the Directive by misinterpreting it in so far as the applicable criteria are concerned (safety and prevention performance records), by omitting the gradual steps that the Commission should have undertaken before reaching a negative decision and by not having taken into account the inspections and reports produced by the Member States concerned, thus adopting unlawful reasoning.
   Finally, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the principles of proportionality as well as the principle of good administration.

      (1)  Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organizations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (OJ 1994 L 319, p. 20).

      (2)  Commission Decision of 13 December 2001 on the recognition of the ‘Hellenic Register of Shipping’ in accordance with Article 4(3) of Council Directive 94/57/EC (notified under document number C(2001) 4218) (OJ 2001 L 329, p. 72).

      (3)  Commission Decision of 3 August 2005 on the extension of the limited recognition of the Hellenic Register of Shipping (notified under document number C(2005) 2940) (OJ 2005 L 219, p. 43).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 October 2002 in Joined Case T-330/00 and T-114/01: Stefano Cocchi and Evi Hainz against Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Recruitment procedure — Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations — Priority of officials — Rejection of candidatures of temporary members of staff — Appointment of an official — Prohibition of discrimination — Statement of reasons — Interests of the service — Fourth and fifth paragraphs of Article 8 of the Conditions of employment of other servants — Duty to have regard for the interests of officials — Vacancy notice)

text:
C 323/32                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.12.2002
1.     Annuls Commission Decision 2000/400/EC of 10 May                     2000), the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed
       2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC       of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
       Treaty (IV/32.150 — Eurovision);                                     Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                            given a judgment on 15 October 2002, in which it:
2.     Orders the Commission to pay its own costs, together with
       those of the applicants and of the intervener Reti Televisive
       Italiane Spa;                                                        1.     Annuls the decision of the Commission of 30 June 2000,
                                                                                refusing to acknowledge the eligibility of the applicant for the
3.     Orders DSF Deutsches SportFernsehen GmbH to bear the costs                  Programme encouraging the development and distribution of
       of its intervention;                                                        European audiovisual works (MEDIA II — Development and
                                                                                distribution) (1996-2000);
4.     Orders the intervener Union européenne de radio-télévision to
       bear its own costs, together with those incurred by Métropole        2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
       télévision SA, Antena 3 de Televisión SA and SIC — Sociedade
       Independente de Comunicação SA for their interventions;
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
5.     Orders the intervener Radiotelevisión Española to bear its own
       costs, together with those incurred by Antena 3 de Televisión
       SA for its intervention;
6.     Orders Gestevisión Telecinco SA to bear the costs it incurred in
       connection with the intervention of the Union européenne de
       radio-télévision and of Radiotelevisión Española.
( 1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000, C 302 of 21.10.2000 and C 355 of
     9.12.2000.                                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 October 2002
                                                                            in Joined Case T-330/00 and T-114/01: Stefano Cocchi
                                                                            and Evi Hainz against Commission of the European
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                           Communities ( 1)
                          of 15 October 2002                                (Officials — Recruitment procedure — Article 29(1) of the
                                                                            Staff Regulations — Priority of officials — Rejection of
in Case T-233/00: Scanbox Entertainment A/S v Com-                          candidatures of temporary members of staff — Appointment
            mission of the European Communities (1)                         of an official — Prohibition of discrimination — Statement
                                                                            of reasons — Interests of the service — Fourth and fifth
                                                                            paragraphs of Article 8 of the Conditions of employment of
(Programme encouraging the development and distribution                     other servants — Duty to have regard for the interests of
of European audiovisual works (MEDIA II) — Automatic                                             officials — Vacancy notice)
         support for distribution — Recipient company)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/51)
                            (2002/C 323/50)
                      (Language of the case: Danish)                                              (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-233/00, Scanbox Entertainment A/S, established in
Farum (Denmark), represented by T. Steffensen, lawyer, v                    In Joined Cases T-330/00 and T-114/01: Stefano Cocchi and
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: N. Ras-                     Evi Hainz, former members of the temporary staff of the
mussen and H. Støvlbæk): Application for the annulment of                   Commission of the European Communities, residing in Varese
the Commission’s decision of 30 June 2000 refusing to                       (Italy), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers,
recognise the applicant’s eligibility for the programme encour-             with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
aging the development and distribution of European audiovisu-               mission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and
al works (Media II — Development and distribution) (1996-                   D. Waelbroeck), application:
 ---pagebreak--- 21.12.2002              EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 323/33
—      in Case T-330/00, for annulment of the decisions of                   composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and
       16 March 2000 and 22 February 2000 of the authority                   A. W. H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
       empowered to conclude contracts not to accept the                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 October 2002, in which
       respective candidatures of Mr Cocchi and Mrs Hainz for                it:
       the posts declared to be vacant by vacancy notices COM/
       R/5530/00 and COM/R/5500/00 respectively or, in the
                                                                             1.     Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
       alternative, annulment of those vacancy notices and for
                                                                                for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
       compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered
                                                                                Designs) of 22 September 2000 (Case R 278/2000-1);
       by the applicants;
—      in Case T-114/01, for annulment of the decisions of                   2.     Orders the defendant to pay the costs.
       appointment adopted by the authority empowered to
       conclude contracts under the recruitment procedures
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
       initiated by vacancy notices COM/R/5530/00 and COM/
       R/5500/00 and for compensation in respect of the harn
       allegedly suffered by the applicants,
the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
J.D. Cooke, President of the Chamber, R. García-Valdecasas
and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 October 2002 in which                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
it:
                                                                                of 9 October 2002
1.     Dismisses the actions;
2.     Orders all the parties to bear their own costs.                       in Case T-36/01: Glaverbel v Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                             the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
( 1) OJ C 372, 23.12.2000, and C 227, 11.8.2001.
                                                                             (Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 —
                                                                             Design applied to the surface of goods — Absolute ground
                                                                               for refusal — Distinctive character — Right to a hearing)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/53)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                     (Language of the case: English)
                         of 9 October 2002
                                                                             In Case T-36/01, Glaverbel, established in Brussels (Belgium),
in Case T-360/00: Dart Industries Inc. v Office for Har-                     represented by S. Möbus, lawyer, v Office for Harmonisation
monisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                           in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                        Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)                                 (Agents: A. di Carlo and G. Schneider): Action brought against
                                                                             the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
(Community trade mark — ‘UltraPlus’ — Absolute grounds                       Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
for refusal — Descriptive character, distinctive character —                 Designs) of 30 November 2000 (Case R 137/2000-1), the
      Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)                   Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:
                                                                             R. M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and A. W. H. Meij,
                                                                             Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                           (2002/C 323/52)                                   has given a judgment on 9 October 2002, in which it:
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                             1.     Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
                                                                                for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) (OHIM) of 30 November 2000 (Case R 137/2000-
In Case T-360/00, Dart Industries Inc., established in Orlando,                     1);
Florida (United States of America), represented by J. Gray and
K.-U. Jonas, lawyers, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal             2.     Orders the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: V. Melgar):                         by the applicant.
Action brought against the decision of the First Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
(Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 September 2000 (Case R
278/2000-1) on the registration of ‘UltraPlus’ as a Community
trade mark, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),


title: Action brought on 19 October 1996 by Società Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-166/96)

text:
No C 40/22           I EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8 . 2 . 97
Action brought on 19 October 1996 by Prolafer Sri                    The applicant therefore alleges infringement of Decision
   against the Commission of the European Communities                3855/91 /ECSC and the erroneous and discriminatory
                        ( Case T-165/96 )
                                                                     interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 4
                                                                     thereof.
                           ( 97/C 40/51 )
                                                                     O Commission Decision No 3855/91 /ECSC of 27 November
                                                                         1991 establishing Community rules for aid to the steel
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                         industry ( OJ No L 362 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 57 ).
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 October                   Action brought on 19 October 1996 by Societa Ferriera
1996 by Prolafer Sri , whose registered office is at Bergamo         Acciaieria Casilina SpA against the Commission of the
(Italy ), represented by Carmine Punzi and Filippo Satta , of                             European Communities
the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                                ( Case T-166/96 )
at the Chambers of Charles Turk, 13A Avenue Guillaume .
                                                                                ( 97/C 40/52 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant claims that the Court should uphold the
application and annul the contested measures .                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 19 October
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  1996 by Societa Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA, whose
                                                                     registered office is at Rome , represented by Carmine Punzi
                                                                     and Filippo Satta, of the Rome Bar, with an address for
The applicant, a steel company which is in liquidation,              service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Turk ,
has brought an action directed against the same decision             13A Avenue Guillaume .
which is the subject matter of Case T-164/96 Moccia Irme
v. Commission, in so far as it affects it, and also against          The applicant claims that the Court should uphold the
the decision of 12 December 1994 , in so far as, in order            application and annul the contested measures .
to define the criteria under the second indent of the
second paragraph of Article 4 of the 'Steel Aid Code ' ( 1 ),        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
it has provided that ' regularly produced' must be
understood as meaning production ' in 1993 [...] on                  The applicant, an Italian steel company, has brought an
average one shift per day, that is, at least 8 hours per day,        action directed principally against the same decision which
5 days per week ', without taking account of interruptions           is the subject-matter of Cases T-l 64/96 Moccia Irme SpA
to production resulting from force majeure.                          v. Commission and T-165/96 Prolafer v. Commission, in
                                                                     so far as it concerns itself.
                                                                     The pleas and main arguments are analogous to those
The applicant points out that its lack of production during          already relied on in the abovementioned cases.
the reference period is not due to a management choice
but arises solely and exclusively from a measure taken by
the Italian criminal judicial authority which has ordered
the attachment of its plant on grounds of environmental
pollution .
                                                                     Action brought on 19 October 1996 by Societa Dora
                                                                     Ferriera Acciaieria Sri, in liquidation, against the
In its view, it is unlawful to allow State aid for the                         Commission of the European Communities
scrapping of steel plant on condition that there has been                                     ( Case T-l 67/96 )
regular production in the brief reference period, without
taking into account that such regularity may have been                                            ( 97/C 40/53 )
prevented by factors wholly outwith the control of the                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
 undertaking .
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
The applicant further alleges that . the principle of equal          Instance of the European Communities on 19 October
 treatment has been breached inasmuch as the Commission               1996 by Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Sri , in liquidation,
 has approved such aid intended for undertakings which               whose registered office is in Bergamo, represented by
 had not reached the minimum level of production. In view             Carmine Punzi and Filippo Satta , of the Rome Bar, with
 of this, it cannot be seen why a voluntary interruption of           an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
 the production cycle may justify failure to reach the                Charles Turk, 13A Avenue Guillaume .
 minimum level of production , while a total block on
 activity imposed by an order of the criminal judicial                The applicant claims that the Court should uphold the
 authority is held to be irrelevant to that end.                      application and annul the contested measures .


title: Case C-216/06: Action brought on  11 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/19

         Action brought on 11 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-216/06)
   (2006/C 165/33)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and F. Simonetti, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Kingdom of Spain, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (1) or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, has failed to comply with its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit prescribed for implementation in national law of Directive 2003/35/EC expired on 25 June 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 156, p. 17.


title: Case C-321/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mannheim (Germany)) — Criminal proceedings against Karl Schwarz (Directive 91/439/EEC — Holding of driving licences from different Member States — Validity of a driving licence issued before the accession of a State — Withdrawal of a second driving licence issued by the Member State of residence — Recognition of a driving licence issued before the issue of a second licence later withdrawn on the ground that the holder was unfit — Expiry of the period accompanying a measure withdrawing a driving licence during which no application may be made for the issue of a new driving licence)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mannheim (Germany)) — Criminal proceedings against Karl Schwarz
   (Case C-321/07) (1)

   (Directive 91/439/EEC - Holding of driving licences from different Member States - Validity of a driving licence issued before the accession of a State - Withdrawal of a second driving licence issued by the Member State of residence - Recognition of a driving licence issued before the issue of a second licence later withdrawn on the ground that the holder was unfit - Expiry of the period accompanying a measure withdrawing a driving licence during which no application may be made for the issue of a new driving licence)
   2009/C 90/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Mannheim

      Party in the main proceedings

   Karl Schwarz

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Mannheim — Interpretation of Articles 7(5) and 8(2) and 8(4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p.1) — Holder of several driving licences — Validity of a licence issued before accession by the Member State of which the defendant is a national — Following the period of the temporary ban on obtaining a new licence, non-recognition, on its territory, by the Member State of residence of a driving licence obtained, before accession, in another Member State before the expiry of a temporary ban on obtaining a new licence

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 7(5) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, must be interpreted as not precluding a national of a Member State from holding simultaneously two valid driving licences, one of which is a Community licence and the other a driving licence issued by another Member State where both licences were obtained before the accession of the latter State to the European Union.

               2.

               Article 1 and Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, do not preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise the right to drive stemming from a driving licence issued by another Member State before that State’s accession to the European Union if that licence was issued prior to a driving licence issued by the first Member State, in which the second driving licence has been withdrawn on the ground of its holder’s unfitness to drive. The fact that such refusal occurs after the period accompanying that withdrawal during which no application could be made for the issue of a new driving licence is irrelevant in that regard.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case C-109/05: Action brought on 3 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/12

         Action brought on 3 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
   (Case C-109/05)
   (2005/C 132/24)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Minas Konstantinidis and Bernard Schima, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by restricting, in Paragraph 5(1) of the Verordnung über die Abfallvermeidung, Sammlung und Behandlung von Altfahrzeugen (Regulation on waste prevention, collection and treatment of end-of life vehicles), the obligation to take end-of-life vehicles back free of charge to:

                           (1)

                           end-of-life vehicles of those makes which have been put into circulation by the existing manufacturers and importers, and

                           (2)

                           vehicles registered in Austria,

                     the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles; (1)

               2.

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The provision of the Austrian regulation on end-of-life vehicles stating that manufacturers or importers have to take back end-of-life vehicles of those makes which they have put into circulation, in so far as those vehicles were registered in Austria, infringes Article 5 of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000.
   The directive obliges the Member States to set up return systems in such a way that all end-of-life vehicles are taken back irrespective of their make and establishes an obligation to take back end-of-life vehicles free of charge. These objectives are not achieved by the Austrian legislation since it has a dual restriction: the obligation to take vehicles back is limited to makes which the relevant manufacturer or importer has put into circulation, and it is limited to vehicles registered in Austria.
   The Commission is unable to subscribe to the view of the Republic of Austria that the distinction drawn on the basis of registration in Austria is objectively justified because that is the only way of avoiding a disproportionately heavy burden being placed on individual manufacturers by the obligation to take vehicles back. It states, on the contrary, that if it should turn out in practice that a disproportionate burden is placed on individual manufacturers or importers or the collectors in a Member State because end-of-life vehicles registered abroad are taken back free of charge, account is to be taken of that within the framework of the procedure under the fourth subparagraph of Article 5(4). This provision states that the Commission is to monitor regularly implementation of the obligation to take vehicles back in order to ensure that it does not result in market distortions.

      (1)  OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.


title: Case C-480/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/50/EEC — No formal European tendering procedure for the award of waste treatment services — Cooperation between local authorities)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-480/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/50/EEC - No formal European tendering procedure for the award of waste treatment services - Cooperation between local authorities)
   2009/C 180/03
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and B. Schima, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr, Agents, C. von Donat, Rechtsanwalt)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 8 in conjunction with Titles III, IV, V and VI of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — Failure to organise a formal European award procedure for the award of waste disposal services by four local authorities (Landkreise) to a public body

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.01.2007.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 16 January 2001 in Case T-328/00 R: Mario Costacurta v Commission of the Communities (Officials — Procedure for interim relief — Admissibility of the main action)

text:
5.5.2001                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 134/23
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                 of the European Communities (Agents: W. Mölls and F. Siredey-
                              INSTANCE                                       Garnier) — application for, first, suspension of execution of
                                                                             the Commission Decision of 13 September 2000 rejecting
                         of 16 January 2001                                  TotalFina Elf’s proposal in relation to approval of the applicants
                                                                             as concessionaires of six motorway service stations and,
in Case T-328/00 R: Mario Costacurta v Commission of                         second, a direction that the Commission order TotalFina Elf to
                          the Communities                                    suspend execution of the undertaking set out in point 36
                                                                             of the annex ‘undertakings proposed by TotalFina’ to the
                                                                             Commission Decision of 9 February 2000 authorising the
(Officials — Procedure for interim relief — Admissibility of                 acquisition of Elf Aquitaine by TotalFina, in so far as it concerns
                           the main action)                                  the six service stations whose transfer to the applicants was
                                                                             proposed to the Commission by TotalFina Elf on 12 August
                           (2001/C 134/50)                                   2000, the President of the Court of First Instance has made an
                                                                             order on 17 January 2001, the operative part of which is as
                                                                             follows:
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed;
In Case T-328/00 R: Mario Costacurta, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Luxem-                   2.    The decision as to costs is reserved.
bourg, represented by M. Petit, of the Luxembourg Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at his Chambers,
74 Val Sainte-Croix, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application
for, first, stay of execution of the implied decision rejecting the
applicant’s request lodged on 23 June 2000 and, second, a
declaration that the applicant is to be temporarily reassigned               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
pursuant to Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of                                               INSTANCE
Officials of the European Communities, the President of the
Court has made an order on 16 January 2001, the operative
part of which is as follows:                                                                         of 26 January 2001
1.     The application for interim relief is dismissed;                      in Case T-353/00 R: Jean-Marie Le Pen v European
                                                                                Parliament
2.     The decision as to costs is reserved.
                                                                             (Interlocutory proceedings — Measure adopted by the Parlia-
                                                                             ment — Termination of the term of office of an MEP as a
                                                                             result of the application of national law — Admissibility —
                                                                                Prima facie case — Urgency — Balancing of interests)
                                                                                (2001/C 134/52)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                              INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         of 17 January 2001
                                                                             In Case T-353/00 R: Jean-Marie Le Pen, residing at Saint-Cloud
in Case T-342/00 R: Petrolessence and Société de Gestion                     (France), represented by F. Wagner, lawyer, v European
de Restauration Routière (SG2R) v Commission of the                          Parliament (Agents: H. Krück and C. Karamarcos), supported
                      European Communities                                   by the French Republic (Agents: D. Wibaux and G. de Bergues)
                                                                             — application for annulment of the decision taken by the
(Procedure for interim relief — Competition — Concen-                        President of the European Parliament in the form of a
tration — Admissibility — Urgency — Balancing of inter-                      declaration dated 23 October 2000 — the President of the
                                   ests)                                     Court of First Instance made an order on 26 January 2001, the
                                                                             operative part of which is as follows:
                           (2001/C 134/51)
                                                                             1.    Operation of the decision taken by the President of the European
                                                                                Parliament in the form of a declaration dated 23 October
                     (Language of the case: French)                                2000 is suspended inasmuch as it constitutes a decision of the
                                                                                European Parliament by which the Parliament took formal note
                                                                                of the termination of the applicant’s term of office as a member
In Case T-342/00 R: Petrolessence, Société de Gestion de
                                                                                of the European Parliament.
Restauration Routière (SG2R), established in Nancy (France),
represented by F. Puel, of the Hauts-de-Seine and Brussels Bars,             2.    The costs are reserved.
and M. Troncoso Ferrer, of the Pamplona and Brussels Bars,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
C. Kaufhold, 24 Avenue Marie-Thérèse, against Commission


title: Case T-434/09: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — Centrotherm Systemtechnik v OHIM — centrotherm Clean Solutions (CENTROTHERM) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark CENTROTHERM — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Admissibility of new evidence — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Plea of illegality — Rule 40(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — Centrotherm Systemtechnik v OHIM — centrotherm Clean Solutions (CENTROTHERM)
   (Case T-434/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark CENTROTHERM - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Admissibility of new evidence - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Plea of illegality - Rule 40(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
   2011/C 311/78
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH (Brilon, Germany) (represented by: J. Albrecht and U. Vormbrock, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and R. Manea, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG (Blaubeuren, Germany) (represented by: O. Löffel, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 August 2009 (Case R 6/2008-4) relating to revocation proceedings between centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG and Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case T-391/04: Action brought on 28 September 2004 by Bernard Nonat against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/22

         Action brought on 28 September 2004 by Bernard Nonat against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-391/04)
   (2004/C 314/54)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 September 2004 by Bernard Nonat, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decisions not to enter the applicant's name in a avourable position on either the list of merit or the list of officials promoted to grade A4 in the 2003 promotion exercise;

               —

               declare unlawful Article 12 of the general provisions for the implementation DGE) of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations in so far as it provides for the award of transitional priority points at the rate of one point per year of seniority in grade with a maximum of seven points and additional special priority points within a limit of 150 % of the possibilities for promotion in the previous exercise without taking account of the actual merits which officials have displayed during the reference years;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant in these proceedings objects to the appointing authority's refusal to promote him to A4 in the 2003 promotion exercise.
   In support of his claims, he alleges that there has been a breach of Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations and also of the principle of non-discrimination and the principle that an official is entitled to reasonable career prospects.
   He states in that regard that the new procedures adopted by the Commission for the assessment and promotion of officials deprive officials of an assessment of their own merits. In his specific case, and in application of Article 12(3b) of the DGE of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, he is deemed to have the same merits, in terms of additional special priority points, as officials in the same grade who were not proposed in the previous exercise.
   It is thus apparent that two different categories of officials in terms of merit are treated in the same way, in breach of the principle of non-discrimination and of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations: first, officials who, beyond the limit of 150 % of the possibilities of promotion for the 2002 promotion exercise, were proposed for promotion in that exercise and, second, officials eligible for promotion in 2002 who were not proposed.
   Likewise, the award of one transitional priority point per year of seniority in grade has the effect, in breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, of enhancing the seniority in grade of officials eligible for promotion without taking account of the respective merits which they have displayed during the reference period.


title: Case F-126/05: Action brought on  22 December 2005  — Borbély v Commission

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/54

         Action brought on 22 December 2005 — Borbély v Commission
   (Case F-126/05)
   (2006/C 60/101)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Andrea Borbély (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Stötzel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 30 September 2005 in so far as it refuses to grant the applicant the daily subsistence allowance provided for in Article 10(1) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, the installation allowance provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations and reimbursement of travel expenses on taking up her appointment as provided for in Article 7(1)(a) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the applicant the daily subsistence allowance, the installation allowance and the travel expenses on taking up her appointment, together with interest from the dates on which those amounts became payable pursuant to Annex VII of the Staff Regulations.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, formally an official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Budapest, Hungary, seconded for Diplomatic Service to the Permanent Representation on Hungary to the EU in Brussels for a period of four years, was appointed as probationary official of the Commission and posted in Brussels.
   She applied in March 2005 for the installation allowance, reimbursement of the travel expenses payable on taking up her appointment and the daily subsistence allowance. The Commission rejected that request.
   The applicant claims that, while on secondment, she continued to be remunerated by her Hungarian employer and maintained her residence and her financial interests in Hungary. Moreover, in Brussels she used to live in a furnished apartment relied by her employer.
   She argues that the case-law (1) has already established that an official is entitled to the above-mentioned reimbursement and allowances in a situation where the place of appointment is the one on which the official resided immediately prior to being appointed because of a secondment.

      (1)  Case T-137/95 Mozzaglia v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-619 and II-1657.


title: Case T-34/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  22 February 2006  —  Le Levant  001 and Others v Commission (State aid — Concept of interested party — Formal notice to submit comments — Decision to open the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC — Tax deduction measure for certain overseas investments — Development aid for shipbuilding — Assessment in the light of Article 87(1) EC — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/10

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 February 2006 — Le Levant 001 and Others v Commission
   (Case T-34/02) (1)

   (State aid - Concept of interested party - Formal notice to submit comments - Decision to open the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC - Tax deduction measure for certain overseas investments - Development aid for shipbuilding - Assessment in the light of Article 87(1) EC - Obligation to state reasons)
   (2006/C 96/17)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: EURL Le Levant 001 (Paris, France) and the other applicants listed in the Annex to the judgment (represented by: P. Kirch and N Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by G. Rozet, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2001/882/EC of 25 July 2001 on the State aid implemented by France in the form of development assistance for the cruise vessel Le Levant, built by Alstom Leroux Naval for operation in Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon (OJ 2001 L 327, p. 37).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2001/882/EC of 25 July 2001 on the State aid implemented by France in the form of development assistance for the cruise vessel Le Levant, built by Alstom Leroux Naval for operation in Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicants, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ 109, 4.5.2002.


title: Case T-285/09: Action brought on 17 July 2009 — CEVA v Commission

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/40

         Action brought on 17 July 2009 — CEVA v Commission
   (Case T-285/09)
   2009/C 220/85
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Centre d’Étude et de Valorisation des Algues SA (CEVA) (Pleubian, France) (represented by: J.-M. Peyrical, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               declare that no statement of reasons has been provided for the enforcement orders for four debit notes of the European Commission, dated 11 May 2009: No 3230901933, No 3230901935, No 3230901936 and No 3230901937;

               —

               declare that there is a likelihood of unjust enrichment on the part of the Commission in the event that CEVA refunds the amount of EUR 173 435 together with default interest;

               —

               in consequence, annul the enforcement orders for the four debit notes dated 11 May 2009, namely, No 3230901933, No 3230901935, No 3230901936 and No 3230901937;

               —

               lastly, declare that the Commission has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the ‘SEAPURA’ contract, namely Contract No Q5RS-2000-31334;

               —

               declare that the Commission has failed, in particular, to comply with Article 22(5)(3) and Article 3.5 of Annex II to Contract No Q5RS-2000-31334;

               —

               in consequence, annul the enforcement orders for the four debit notes dated 11 May 2009, namely, No 3230901933, No 3230901935, No 3230901936 and No 3230901937.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, CEVA is seeking annulment of the enforcement orders by which the Commission demanded full reimbursement of the advance payments made to CEVA in the context of the SEAPURA Contract (No Q5RS-2000-31334) concerning a research and technological development project.
   In support of its action, CEVA relies on three pleas in law:

               —

               failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons, in so far as the Commission based its position on the allegation that CEVA was in breach of its contractual obligations but did not set out the factual and legal grounds for that allegation;

               —

               breach of the principle that there should be no unjust enrichment since, if the sum claimed by the Commission were to be refunded in full, the Commission would be unjustly enriched in that the work and research carried out by CEVA would be available to the Commission without it having to pay for it;

               —

               failure on the part of the Commission to make proper use of its powers of control during the performance of the contract.


title: Case C-119/99: Reference for a preliminary by the Tribunal d'lnstance (District Court), Paris 7th, by judgment of that court of 30 March 1999 in the case of Hewlett Packard BV v Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects

text:
3.7.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 188/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Cour de                    The French Republic considers that the Commission has
Cassation (Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamb-                        infringed the principle of proportionality by applying a flat-rate
er), by judgment of that court of 6 April 1999 in the case                  correction of 2% on the basis that on-the-spot checks were of
of Union Nationale Interprofessionnelle des Légumes                         insufficient quality, even though the seriousness of the defects
Transformés (UNILET) and Gilles Le Bars against Associ-                     found in 1994 does not justify such a correction and it was
ation Comité Economique Régional Agricole Fruits et                         permissible for the Commission to carry out an assessment of
               Légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL)                                the actual risk incurred by the Guarantee Section of the
                                                                            European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. The
                                                                            French Government claims that the Court of Justice should
                         (Case C-117/99)                                    also annul Decision C(1999)209 final of 3 February 1999 on
                                                                            that point.
                         (1999/C 188/24)
                                                                            The French Government claims:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      — that Commission Decision 1999/187/EC should be
European Communities by judgment of the French Cour de                           annulled in so far as it concerns a flat-rate correction of
Cassation (Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber) of                        567.7 million francs. (1)
6 April 1999, received at the Court Registry on 9 April 1999,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Union Nationale
Interprofessionnelle des Légumes Transformés (UNILET) and                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Gilles Le Bars against Association Comité Economique
Régional Agricole Fruits et Légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL)
on the following question:                                                  The flat-rate correction of 2%, on the ground of the alleged
                                                                            insufficiency of the on-the-spot checks carried out under the
                                                                            support system for producers of certain arable crops (Council
Is Article 15b(8) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 (1) of the                 Regulation 1765/92), (2) is based on an extrapolation of
Council of 18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the                    weaknesses reveaed by a mission in situ; it rests on too small
market in fruit and vegetables to be interpreted as meaning                 and insignificant a sample and infringes the principle of
that, where a Member State has applied Article 15b(l) of that               proportionality. The French Government maintains that the
regulation, that is to say when it has made certain rules on                Commission has failed to carry out an assessment of the actual
production and marketing adopted by a producers’ organis-                   risk incurred by the Guarantee Section of the European
ation binding on producers established in the district who do               Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.
not belong to that organisation, it is entitled to exempt certain
non-member producers from the payment of those fees, in
respect of a given product, in so far as the goods produced by              (1) Commission Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February 1999 on the
                                                                                clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in
them are intended for industrial processing, rather than for                    respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of
marketing fresh.                                                                the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (OJ
                                                                                1999 L 61, p. 37).
                                                                            (2) OJ 1992 L 181, p. 12.
(1) OJ English Special Edition i 1972 (II), p. 437.
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary by the Tribunal d’lnstance
                                                                            (District Court), Paris 7th, by judgment of that court of
                                                                            30 March 1999 in the case of Hewlett Packard BV v
Action brought on 12 April 1999 by the French Republic                           Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-119/99)
                         (Case C-118/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 188/26)
                         (1999/C 188/25)                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by judgment of 30 March 1999 of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   Tribunal d’Instance, Paris 7ème, received at the Court Registry
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                on 12 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Communities on 12 April 1999 by the French Republic,                        Hewlett Packard BV v Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits
represented by Kareen Rispal-Bellanger, Deputy Director for                 Indirects on the following question:
International Economic Law and Community Law at the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Christina Vasak, Assistant                 Under the Common Customs Tariff, facsimile machines and
Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the same Ministry, acting as               printers do not fall under the same tariff heading. When a
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                    single machine is designed to perform several functions, the
French Embassy, 8b Boulevard Joseph II.                                     tariff heading is determined according to the principal function.
 ---pagebreak--- C 188/12                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         3.7.1999
In point 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2184/97 (1) was the                         — infringement of Article 43 of the Treaty, of the general
Commission therefore entitled to decide that all multi-function                    principles concerning the hierarchy of sources of law
facsimile machines essentially consisting of:                                      and of Article 8(4)(ii) of Regulation No 3760/92 (2);
— a modem                                                                     — manifest inadequacy of the criteria presumably adopted
                                                                                in order to implement the principle of ‘relative stab-
— a scanner                                                                        ility’.
— a printing device                                                       2. Unlawfulness of Article 2(2) and of the Annex (table
                                                                              relating to bluefin tuna), by reason of:
and operating either in an autonomous form or in conjunction
with a computer, fall under tariff heading 8517 21 (facsimile                 — absence of a statement of reasons. The fifth recital in
machines), thus excluding the possibility of determining the                       the preamble to the regulation contains reasoning
dominant function of each machine on a case-by-case basis                          which is merely ostensible, incomprehensible and
and laying down the principle that the printing device is of                       certainly insufficient for the purposes of providing
secondary importance, whatever the machine, provided that it                       any real reasons which might justify the exceptional
falls within the category described?                                               allocation set out in the first table (bluefin tuna) in the
                                                                                annex to the regulation;
(1) Commission regulation of 3 November 1997 concerning the
    classfication of certain goods in the combined nomenclature (OJ           — infringement of Regulation No 3760/92 (Article 8(4))
    L 299, p. 6).                                                                  and breach of the general principles regarding the
                                                                                common agricultural policy, legal certainty and basic
                                                                                guarantees relating to sanctions;
                                                                              — in addition, manifest error with regard to ICCAT;
                                                                              — misuse of powers.
Action brought on 10 April 1999 by the Italian Republic
          against the Council of the European Union                       (1) OJ L 13 of 18 January 1999, p. 54.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 389 of 31 December 1992, p. 1.
                           (Case C-120/99)
                           (1999/C 188/27)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 10 April 1999 by the Italian Republic, represented by             Action brought on 8 April 1999 by the Commission of
Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by Pier Giorgio                 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Ferri, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, Rue Marie-Adelaïde.
                                                                                (Case C-121/99)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (1999/C 188/28)
— allow the present application, and consequently,
                                                                          An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
— partially annul Council Regulation (EC) No 49/1999 (1);                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April
                                                                          1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                          Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Kirchberg.
                                                                          The Commission claims that the Court should:
1. Unlawfulness of Article 2(1) of the regulation (allocation
     of percentages from the share available to the Community             1. declare that, by not communicating the laws, regulations
     of bluefin tuna stocks), by reason of:                                   and administrative provisions required to comply with
                                                                              Commission Directive 97/35/EC (1) of 18 June 1997
     — total absence of a statement of reasons. The recitals in               adapting to technical progress for the second time Council
         the preamble to the regulation do not in any way                     Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the
         satisfy the essential guarantee requiring the provision              environment of genetically modified organisms, or by not
         of a statement of the parameters and criteria adopted                adopting the necessary measures to comply therewith, the
         for the purposes of dividing up a total allowable catch              Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
         into national quotas;                                                the Treaty and that directive;


title: Case T-358/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of  7 September 2005  — Krahl v Commission (Officials — Service in a non-member country — Accommodation expenses — Actions — Time-limits — Mandatory — Late action — Inadmissible)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/23

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 September 2005 — Krahl v Commission
   (Case T-358/03) (1)

   (Officials - Service in a non-member country - Accommodation expenses - Actions - Time-limits - Mandatory - Late action - Inadmissible)
   (2005/C 296/49)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Sigfried Krahl (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchel, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, Agents)
   Application for
   annulment of the Commission's decision refusing to reimburse all the accommodation expenses incurred by the applicant following his posting to Zagreb
   Operative part of the Order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 10.1.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 March 2003 in Joined Cases T-61/00 and T-62/00: Associazione Produttori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL) and Associazione Italiana Produattori Olivicoli (AIPO) v Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture — EAGF — Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 — Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 Community Financial Assistance — Aid for the processing and marketing of agricultural products — Procedure to annul aid — Failure to comply with the conditions of grant — Force majeure — Principle of proportionality)

text:
24.5.2003                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 124/17
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 6 March 2003                                                             of 6 March 2003
in Cases T-228/99 and T-233/99: Westdeutsche Landes-                        in Joined Cases T-61/00 and T-62/00: Associazione Pro-
bank Girozentrale and Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Com-                       duttori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL) and Associazione Italiana
           mission of the European Communities (1)                          Produattori Olivicoli (AIPO) v Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                pean Communities (1)
(State aid — Commission’s lack of competence — Infringe-
                                                                            (Agriculture — EAGF — Regulation (EEC) No 355/77
ment of the rights of the defence — Infringement of essential
                                                                            — Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 Community Financial
procedural requirements — Concept of aid — Infringement                     Assistance — Aid for the processing and marketing of
of Articles 87 EC and 295 EC — Market economy investor
                                                                            agricultural products — Procedure to annul aid — Failure
— Appropriate rate of remuneration — Infringement of the
                                                                            to comply with the conditions of grant — Force majeure —
                      obligation to state reasons)
                                                                                Principle of proportionality)
                           (2003/C 124/28)                                                             (2003/C 124/29)
                     (Language of the case: German)                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
In Cases T-228/99 and T-233/99: Westdeutsche Landesbank                     In Joined Cases T-61/00 and T-62/00: Associazione Produttori
Girozentrale, established in Düsseldorf (Germany), represented              Olivicoli Laziali (APOL), established in Rome, Associazione
by F. Montag, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-                 Italiana Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO), established in Rome,
bourg, and Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, represented by                         represented by E. Cappelli, P. de Caterini, F. Lepri and
M. Schütte, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,              R. Vaccarella, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
supported by Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-                       bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
D. Plessing, assisted by H.-F. Wissel), against Commission of               (Agents: C. Cattabriga and M. Moretto)
the European Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and V.
Kreuschitz) supported by Bundesverband deutscher Banken eV,                 —      application, in Case T-61/00, for annulment of Decision C
established in Berlin (Germany), represented by H.-J. Niemeyer,                    (1999) 4561 of the Commission, of 14 December 1999,
lawyer — application for annulment of Commission Decision                          withdrawing the financial contribution granted from the
2000/392/EC of 8 July 1999 on a measure implemented by                             European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund to
the Federal Republic of Germany for Westdeutsche Landesbank                        the applicant by Decision C (84) 1100/293 of the
— Girozentrale (WestLB) (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 1) — the Court                          Commission, of 20 December 1984,
of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung,              —      in Case T-62/00, for annulment of Decision C (1999)
P. Mengozzi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-                      4559 of the Commission, of 14 December 1999, with-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March                         drawing the financial contribution from the European
2003, in which it:                                                                 Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund granted to the
                                                                                applicant by Decision C (84) 500/213 of the Commission,
                                                                                of 29 June 1984
1.     Annuls Commission Decision 2000/392/EC of 8 July 1999
       on a measure implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany          the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
       for Westdeutsche Landesbank — Girozentrale (WestLB);                 R.M. Moura Ramos, President, and J, Pirrung and A.W.H. Meiji,
                                                                            Judges; J. Palacio Gonzàlez, Principle Administrator, for the
2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs of the applicants and         Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:
       to bear its own costs;
                                                                            1.     Dismisses the applications;
3.     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Bundesverband
       deutscher Banken eV to bear their own costs.                         2.     In each case, orders the applicant concerned to bear all the costs.
( 1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.                                                    (1 ) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.


title: Case C-112/05: Action brought on 4 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/15

         Action brought on 4 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-112/05)
   (2005/C 143/22)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by F. Benyon and G. Braun, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that Paragraphs 2(1), 4(1) and 4(3) of the VW-Gesetz infringe Articles 56 EC and 43 EC;

               2.

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Federal Republic of Germany's Gesetz über die Überführung der Anteilsrechte an der Volkswagen Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung in private Hand (Law on the privatisation of equity in the Volkswagenwerk limited company; hereinafter ‘VW-Gesetz’) limits, by way of derogation from the provisions of the Aktiengesetz (Company Law), each shareholder's voting rights to a maximum of 20 % of the share capital. The Federal Republic of Germany and the Land Lower Saxony are each entitled to appoint two members of the supervisory board of VW AG, provided that they hold shares in the company. Resolutions of the general shareholders' meeting of Volkswagen AG, for which a majority of 75 % of the share capital represented at the time of voting is required under the Aktiengesetz, require a majority of more than 80 % of the share capital represented.
   Those provisions are an infringement of the free movement of capital under Article 56 EC and the freedom of establishment under Article 43 EC.
   The Annex to Directive 88/361/EEC includes among movements of capital not only investment in shares and securities, but also participation in undertakings or their acquisition in full.
   The Court of Justice has previously held that the sphere of protection afforded by the free movement of capital covers any legislation which is liable to dissuade investors in other Member States from investing in a company and participating in its management and control. The aim of the prohibition in Article 56 EC is not merely to prevent discrimination against foreign market participants in relation to their domestic counterparts, but it applies to any measure which inhibits the exercise of the free movement of capital in any way. In the light of the Court's findings in relation to the prohibition of restrictions under Article 56 EC, the State-ordered ceiling on voting rights in the VW-Gesetz constitutes an indirect restriction on earnings and thus an infringement of the free movement of capital.
   At general shareholders' meetings — at which the voting capital is not usually fully represented — the shares held by the Land Lower Saxony give it the 20 % of votes needed to block resolutions requiring more than 80 % of the capital represented. That provision of the VW-Gesetz constitutes an impediment by the exercise of State power, since it enables the Land to prevent unwanted changes to the status quo in so far as such changes have to be brought in under the category of resolutions for which, according to the Aktiengesetz, a higher quorum is required.
   The right of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Land Lower Saxony to make appointments to the supervisory board under the VW-Gesetz, notwithstanding the provisions of the Aktiengesetz, restricts the rights of other shareholders to appropriate representation on the company's supervisory board. Since, as the Court has held on several occasions, a provision which restricts the acquisition of shares, or in some other way restricts the possibility of actual participation in the management of a company or in its control, constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital, that statutory provision constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital, contrary to Community law.
   A restriction on the free movement of capital is justified only on the grounds referred to in Article 58 EC or on so-called overriding grounds relating to the public interest. According to the criteria established by the Court, such public interest measures must not be discriminatory, must be objectively necessary and must be proportionate in relation to the objective being pursued. In particular, those grounds must apply to all persons or undertakings pursuing an activity in the territory of the host Member State. General financial interests which are outside the scope of those grounds in Article 58 EC relating to tax law, as well as other economic aims of the Member State cannot, according to settled case-law, justify any restriction prohibited under the EC Treaty. By the standards of Article 56 EC and relevant case-law, the provisions of the aforementioned VW-Gesetz constitute indirect restrictions on earnings for which there is no relevant justification under Community law.