title: Case T-139/99: Action brought on 8 June 1999 by Alsace International Car Services (AICS) v European Parliament

text:
28.8.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 246/39
In support of the present application, the applicants rely upon:         — Annul the contested decision;
— infringement of Articles 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 8, 9, 13, 14 and
    15 of the conditions and breach of general principles of             — Order the European Parliament to pay AICS the sum of
    law, including the principles of equal treatment, non-                    FRF 1 million as compensation for the damage suffered,
    discrimination and proportionality. According to the appli-               pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 215 of the
    cants, their contracts are in fact contracts of indefinite                Treaty of Rome.
    duration resulting from a second renewal of their contracts
    appointing them as temporary staff pursuant to Article
    2(a) of the conditions;
— infringement of Articles 10, paragraph 1, and 12 of the                Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
    conditions and breach of the principle of having due regard
    for the welfare of officials and the principle of legitimate
    expectations. By its conduct, the Commission has preju-
                                                                         The applicant, an undertaking which hires out chauffeur-driver
    diced the interests of the service and jeopardised the careers
                                                                         cars, submitted a tender for private passenger road transport
    of the applicants;
                                                                         services, using chauffeur-driver cars and mini-buses, in the
                                                                         urban district of Strasbourg from the point of arrival (stations
— infringement of Articles 47(2)(a) and 74(2)(a) of the                  and airport) to places of work and vice versa within a radius of
    conditions and breach of the principle of law which                  20 km around the European Parliament buildings (Call for
    requires that an administrative act be supported by legit-           tenders No 99/S 18-8765/FR lot 1).
    imate reasons which are admissible and relevant and
    contain no errors of fact or law. By taking the contested
    action and notifying the applicants on 23 March 1999
    that their contractual relationships would end on 30 June            By letter of 7 April 1999 (the contested measure), the Director
    1999, the defendant failed to satisfy the requirements in            General for Administration of the European Parliament in-
    the applicable provisions in that a contract of indefinite           formed the applicant that its tender had not been successful.
    duration may only be terminated on giving the proper                 At a meeting with the Director General for Administration on
    notice.                                                              13 April 1999, the applicant’s manager received the
                                                                         impression that the Parliament had renewed the contract with
                                                                         a competitor, Coopérative Taxi 13. By letters of 15 and 19
(1) Case T-117/99.                                                       April 1999, the applicant forwarded certain information
                                                                         concerning the French legislation governing taxi operations. By
                                                                         letter of 4 May 1999 the Director General for Administration
                                                                         informed the applicant that the Parliament had observed all
                                                                         the rules and procedures concerning the conclusion of public
                                                                         service contracts.
Action brought on 8 June 1999 by Alsace International                    In support of its application, the applicant submits that:
         Car Services (AICS) v European Parliament
                                                                         — the conditions under which the European Parliament
                        (Case T-139/99)                                       probably concluded the contract with the applicant’s
                                                                              competitor are vitiated by irregularities: the alleged contract
                        (1999/C 246/78)                                       concluded with Coopérative Taxi 13 or with any other taxi
                                                                              company was concluded in breach of the French legislation
                                                                              applicable to taxi operations and contributes to discrimi-
                                                                              nation to the detriment of other operators of passenger
                   (Language of the case: French)                             vehicles which responded to the abovementioned call for
                                                                              tenders;
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance on 8 June 1999 by Alsace
International Car Services (AICS), whose registered office is in         — the Parliament’s terms for fixing the prices of the services
Strasbourg, France, represented by Corinne Imbach and Anne                    by contract do not meet the requirements of French law;
Dissler, of the Strasbourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marguit Capus-Leclerc, 117
Avenue Gaston Diderich.                                                  — the European Parliament infringed the principle of non-
                                                                              discrimination which is regarded as a fundamental prin-
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:                 ciple of Community law.
— Declare that the reasons for the refusal of the tender
    submitted by AICS are discriminatory and infringe the
    prohibition of discrimination which is regarded as a
    principle of Community law;


title: Action brought on 30 December 1997 by Union Française de l'Express (UFEX) and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-613/97)

text:
C 72/22               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.3.98
Action brought on 30 December 1997 by Union FrancËaise              costs and certain ancillary costs), the expense of which is
de l'Express (UFEX) and Others against the Commission               borne by the taxpayer for the sole purpose of conferring
               of the European Communities                          on the public undertaking the resources necessary to
                       (Case T-613/97)                              perform its function of public postal service under a legal
                                                                    monopoly, a function in no way performed by its private-
                         (98/C 72/49)                               law subsidiary operating on the express delivery market.
               (Language of the case: French)                       In addition, the applicant companies maintain that the
                                                                    Commission:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Ð has breached certain fundamental principles of
Instance of the European Communities on 30 December                     Community law related to the right to access to
1997 by Union FrancËaise de l'Express (UFEX), whose                     information, the principle audi alteram partem and the
registered office is at Roissy (France), DHL International,             right to be heard in the context of Article 93(2) of the
whose registered office is at Roissy, Federal Express                   Treaty,
International (France), whose registered office is at
Gennevilliers (France) and CRIE, whose registered office is
at AsnieÁres (France), represented by Eric Morgan de                Ð failed to comply with the obligation to give reasons
Rivery, of the Paris Bar, and Jacques Derenne, of the                   laid down in Article 190 of the EC Treaty, and
Brussels and Paris Bars, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue
Guillaume.                                                          Ð based the contested decision on several material
                                                                        inaccuracies and obvious errors assessing the facts.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
Ð annul the Commission's decision of 1 October 1997
     concerning the aid granted by France to SFMI-
     Chronopost.
                                                                    Action brought on 2 January 1998 by Fabris Carlo & C.
                                                                           SNC against the Commission of the European
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                         Communities
                                                                                (Case T-1/98)
UFEX and three companies active in the express delivery                                     (98/C 72/50)
field challenge the Commission's rejection of their
complaint criticising the conditions for the logistical and
commercial assistance afforded by La Poste (the French                             (Language of the case: Italian)
Post Office) to its subsidiary, SocieÂteÂ FrancËaise de
Messagerie Internationale (SFMI), concerning in particular
the fact that all post offices and staff and equipment are          An action against the Commission of the European
made available to SFMI, which also enjoys preferential              Communities was brought before the Court of First
customs clearance procedures, preferential financial                Instance of the European Communities on 2 January 1998
conditions and promotional and advertising operations. In           by Fabris Carlo & C. SNC, represented by Claudio
their observations in connection with the procedure under           Mussato, of the Udine Bar, with an address for service at
Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty the applicants had in                his Chambers at 4 Via Dante, Udine.
addition objected to the use of La Poste's brand image,
access to Radio France's air waves when every other
undertaking is excluded, exemption from stamp duty and              The applicant claims that the Court should:
the transfer to SFMI of the advantages arising from La
Poste's part exemption from the special pay-roll tax, as
well as the benefit of the customs privileges enjoyed by la         Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
Poste.                                                                  30 July 1997,
In this application it is claimed that the Commission may           Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
not exclude measures adopted by a public undertaking                    inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
with a legal monopoly of the ordinary postal service in                 the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
favour of its private-law subsidiary, operating on the                  the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
international express delivery market, which is open to                 was paid,
competition, from the scope of Article 92 of the EC
Treaty. Those measures, it is maintained, constitute aid,
inasmuch as they allow the subsidiary to reap the                   Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
advantage of savings on costs (particularly development                 Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case T-348/05 INT: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2009 — JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat v Council (Procedure — Interpretation of a judgment)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2009 — JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat v Council
   (Case T-348/05 INT)
   (Procedure - Interpretation of a judgment)
   2009/C 205/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat (Kirovo-Chepetsk, Russia) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and G. Berrisch, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by K. Talabér-Ritz and H. van Vliet, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for interpretation of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 in Case T-348/05.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the first point of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 in Case T-348/05 JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat v Council is to be interpreted as meaning that Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 of 21 June 2005, amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia, Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, is annulled in so far as it concerns JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat;

               2.

               Orders JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs;

               3.

               Orders that the original of this judgment be appended to the original of the judgment interpreted, in the margin of which reference shall be made to this judgment.


               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/22

         Removal from the register of Case C-314/04 (1)

   (2005/C 106/47)

      (Language of the case: Spanish)

   By order of 28 January 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-314/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana (Spain)): Ricardo Manuel Torres Aucejo v Fondo de Garantía Salarial.

      (1)  OJ C 228 of 11.09.2004.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 17 June 1997 in proceedings brought by Farmitalia Carlo Erba Srl (Case C-392/97)

text:
C 41/8                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.2.98
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón                    Article 5(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/85 of
(Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H.             25 July 1985 on the European Economic Interest
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on                   Grouping (EEIG) is to be interpreted as meaning that the
18 December 1997, the operative part of which is as                  business name of an EEIG must include the words
follows:                                                             European Economic Interest Grouping' or the initials
                                                                     EEIG', whilst the other elements to be included may be
1. A substance is not excluded from the definition of                imposed by the provisions of internal law applicable in the
     waste in Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC           Member State in which the grouping has its official
     of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council                 address.
     Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, merely
     because it directly or indirectly forms an integral part        (1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.
     of an industrial production process.
2. The second paragraph of Article 5 and the third
     paragraph of Article 189 of the EEC Treaty, and
     Directive 91/156/EEC, require the Member States to
     which that Directive is addressed to refrain, during the        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
     period laid down therein for its implementation, from           Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 17 June 1997
     adopting measures liable seriously to compromise the                in proceedings brought by Farmitalia Carlo Erba Srl
     result prescribed.                                                                      (Case C-392/97)
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.                                                                       (98/C 41/14)
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European       Communities       by    an    order    of    the
                                                                     Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) of 17 June
                                                                     1997, which was received at the Court Registry on
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 18 November 1997, for a preliminary ruling in
                        (Fifth Chamber)                              proceedings brought by Farmitalia Carlo Erba Srl on the
                                                                     following questions:
                     of 18 December 1997
in Case C-402/96 (reference to the Court by the                      1. Is it a condition of the application of Article 3(b) of
Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main for a preliminary                     Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 (1) of 18 June
ruling): concerning the commercial registration of an                     1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary
undertaking in the process of formation, brought by                       protection certificate for medicinal products that the
European        Information      Technology       Observatory,            product in respect of which the grant of a protection
    Europäische Wirtschaftliche Interessenvereinigung (1)                 certificate is sought is described as an active
 (European Economic Interest Grouping Ð Business name)                    ingredient' in the medicinal authorization?
                          (98/C 41/13)
                                                                          Are, then, the terms of Article 3(b) not satisfied where
                                                                          only one individual salt of a substance is stated in the
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          notice of authorization to be an active ingredient', but
                                                                          the grant of a protection certificate is sought for the
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            free basis and/or for other salts of the active
          published in the European Court Reports)                        ingredient?
In Case C-402/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           2. If the questions at 1 are answered in the negative:
of the EC Treaty by the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am
Main (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                          According to which criteria is it to be determined
proceedings pending before that court, concerning the
                                                                          whether the product is protected by a basic patent
commercial registration of an undertaking in the process
                                                                          within the meaning of Article 3(a), where the grant of
of formation, brought by European Information
                                                                          a protection certificate is sought for the free base of an
Technology Observatory, Europäische Wirtschaftliche
                                                                          active ingredient including any of its salts, but the
Interessenvereinigung Ð on the interpretation of
                                                                          basic patent in its patent claims mentions only the free
Article 5(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/85 of
                                                                          base of this substance and, moreover, mentions only a
25 July 1985 on the European Economic Interest
                                                                          single salt of this free base? Is the wording of the
Grouping (EEIG) (OJ L 199, 31.7.1985, p. 1) Ð the
                                                                          claim for the basic patent or the latter's scope of
Court (Fifth Chamber) composed of: C. Gulmann
                                                                          protection the determining criterion?
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward and J.-P.
Puissochet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R.              (1) OJ L 182, 2.7.1992, p. 1.
Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 18 December 1997,
the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case T-466/09: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2012 — Comercial Losan v OHIM — McDonald’s International Property (Mc. Baby) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Mc. Baby — Earlier Community figurative mark Mc Kids. always quality. always fun! — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2012 — Comercial Losan v OHIM — McDonald’s International Property (Mc. Baby)
   (Case T-466/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark Mc. Baby - Earlier Community figurative mark Mc Kids. always quality. always fun! - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 243/30
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Comercial Losan, SLU (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: A. Vela Ballesteros, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: McDonald’s International Property Co. Ltd (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 September 2009 (Case R 1706/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between McDonald’s International Property Co. Ltd and Comercial Losan, SLU.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Comercial Losan, SLU to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt by order of 3 March 1998 in the case of Alcatel Austria AG, Stuag Bau-AG, Österreichisches Forschungszentrum Seibersdorf GmbH, Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Österreich - Bietergemeinschaft 'Ecoroute' and Sag-Schrack Anlagentechnik AG v. Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Verkehr (Case C-81/98)

text:
4.7.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 209/13
and Dominique Voillemot, of the Paris Bar, with an                   H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch and K. M.
Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe,                                       Ioannou, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                     Registrar, has made an order on 30 April 1998, the
Ð appeal against the judgment of the Court of First                  operative part of which is as follows:
     Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of
     27 February 1997 in Case T-106/95 FFSA and Others
     v. Commission [1997] ECR II-229, seeking to have                The references for a preliminary ruling made by the
     that judgment set aside, the other party to the                 Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Disticcata di
     proceedings being the Commission of the European                Tivoli, by orders of 5 February and 19 February 1997, are
     Communities (Agent: GeÂrard Rozet), supported by the            inadmissible.
     French Republic (Agents: Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and
     Jean-Marc Belorgey) and La Poste, a corporation                 (1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.
     governed by French public law, established in
     Boulogne-Billancourt (France), represented by HerveÂ
     Lehman, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service
     in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31
     Grand Rue,
Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesvergabe-
     H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, P. J. G.                amt by order of 3 March 1998 in the case of Alcatel
     Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and J. L. Murray, Judges;                  Austria AG, Stuag Bau-AG, Österreichisches Forschungs-
     A. Saggio, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has           zentrum Seibersdorf GmbH, Siemens Aktiengesellschaft
     made an order on 25 March 1998, the operative part              Österreich Ð Bietergemeinschaft Ecoroute' and Sag-
     of which is as follows:                                         Schrack Anlagentechnik AG v. Bundesministerium für
                                                                                Wissenschaft und Verkehr
     1. The appeal is dismissed.
                                                                                (Case C-81/98)
     2. The appellants are ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                                (98/C 209/27)
(1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt
                                                                     (Federal Procurement Office), Austria, of 3 March 1998,
                                                                     received at the Court Registry on 25 March 1998, for a
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                 preliminary ruling in the case of Alcatel Austria AG, Stuag
                                                                     Bau-AG, Österreichisches Forschungszentrum Seibersdorf
                       (Sixth Chamber)                               GmbH, Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Österreich Ð Bieter-
                       of 30 April 1998                              gemeinschaft Ecoroute' and Sag-Schrack Anlagentechnik
                                                                     AG v. Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Verkehr
in Joined Cases C-128/97 and C-137/97 (reference for a
                                                                     (Federal Ministry for Science and Transport) on the
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                     following questions:
Roma, Sezione Disticcata di Tivoli): criminal proceedings
against Italia Testa (C-128/97) and Mario Modesti
(C-137/97) Ð intervener: SocietaÁ Italiana degli Autori ed
                                                                     A. When implementing Directive 89/665/EEC (1), are
                       Editori (SIAE) (1)
                                                                         Member States required by Article 2(6) thereof to
    (Reference for a preliminary ruling Ð Inadmissibility)               ensure that the contracting authority's decision prior
                                                                         to the conclusion of the contract as to the bidder in a
                         (98/C 209/26)
                                                                         tender procedure with which, in the light of the
                                                                         procedure's results, it will conclude the contract (i. e.
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         the award decision) is in any event open to a
                                                                         procedure whereby an applicant may have that
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           decision annulled if the relevant conditions are met,
          published in the European Court Reports)                       notwithstanding the possibility once the contract has
                                                                         been concluded of restricting the legal effects of the
In Joined Cases C-128/97 and C-137/97: reference to the                  review procedure to an award of damages?
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Disticcata di
Tivoli, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings         B. If Question A is answered in the affirmative:
pending before that court against Italia Testa (C-128/97)
and Mario Modesti (C-137/97) Ð intervener: SocietaÁ
Italiana degli Autori ed Editori (SIAE) Ð on the                         Is the obligation described under A. sufficiently clear
interpretation of Articles 30, 36, 85 and 86 of the EC                   and precise to confer on individuals the right to a
Treaty in the light of national rules relating to copyright              review corresponding to the requirements of Article 1
management Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of                      of Directive 89/665/EEC, in which the national court
 ---pagebreak--- C 209/14               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.7.98
     must in any event be able to adopt interim measures                   (3) alternatively, specify a date in the near future
     within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of that                       when that calculation and determination are to
     directive and to annul the contracting authority's                          take place;
     award decision, and the right to rely in proceedings on
     that obligation as against a Member State?                      (III) order the respondents to pay the costs.
C. If Question B is answered in the affirmative:                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     Ð     The contested order wrongly held that the request
     Is the obligation described under A. also sufficiently
                                                                           made pursuant to Article 90(1) of the Staff
     clear and precise to mean that in such a procedure the
                                                                           Regulations, and thus the action, were inadmissible.
     national court must disregard contrary provisions of
                                                                           The appellant contests, first, the construction placed
     national law which would prevent the court from
                                                                           on the provisions applicable in the present case,
     fulfilling that obligation, and must fulfil that
                                                                           which is diametrically opposed to the clear wording
     obligation directly as part of Community law even if
                                                                           of those provisions and is wholly unjustified.
     national law lacks any basis on which to act?
                                                                           Contrary to the view expressed by the Court of First
                                                                           Instance, the words without prejudice to' appearing
(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 33.                                           in the phrase without prejudice to the decisions to
                                                                           be taken by the Council' are meaningless for the
                                                                           purposes of determining whether the fixing of the
                                                                           weightings is to be definitive or provisional, because
                                                                           they are compatible with both of those
                                                                           interpretations. The answer to that question is, by
                                                                           contrast, clearly apparent from the words to be
Appeal brought on 26 March 1998 by Max Kögler
                                                                           taken', which, as is indicated by the corresponding
against the order made on 20 January 1998 by the Third
                                                                           wording in the French text Ð . . . est appeleÂ aÁ
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           prendre' Ð can only be intended to mean must take'
Communities in Case T-160/96 between Max Kögler and
                                                                           or is required to take'. Contrary to the reasoning
the Court of Justice of the European Communities,
                                                                           contained in the contested order, the appellant has at
      supported by the Council of the European Union
                                                                           no time asserted that he relied on the application of
                        (Case C-82/98 P)                                   the Berlin weightings; there was no need whatever
                          (98/C 209/28)                                    for him to do so in order to substantiate his claim.
                                                                           On the contrary, the appellant clearly stated that he
                                                                           relied solely on the undertaking by the Council that
                                                                           a definitive regulation, the content of which was
An appeal against the order made on 20 January 1998 by
                                                                           unknown, would in due course be adopted.
the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-160/96 between Max
Kögler and the Court of Justice of the European                            The Court of First Instance wrongly stated that the
Communities, supported by the Council of the European                      appellant should have contested the pension
Union, was brought before the Court of Justice of the                      statements received by him for the period from 1 July
European Communities on 26 March 1998 by Max                               1991 to 30 June 1994 within the prescribed time-
Kögler, represented by Theo Baltes, Rechtsanwalt, Trier,                   limit; where a person fails to contest a measure
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                           within the time-limit laid down, he cannot start time
Chambers of ReneÂ Weber, 3 Rue de la Loge, L-1945                          running afresh by submitting a request pursuant to
Luxembourg.                                                                Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations. In the present
                                                                           case, the Court of First Instance could only have
                                                                           come to that conclusion, which is certainly a correct
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                statement of the position as regards definitive
                                                                           decisions of the appointing authority, because, by
                                                                           failing to take into account the fact that the
(I)    set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                           provisions on which the said pension statements
       20 January 1998 dismissing as inadmissible the
                                                                           were based were provisional, and by nonsensically
       application in Case T-160/96 (1);
                                                                           misconstruing the appellant's reliance on the
                                                                           undertaking given by the Council, it failed to take
(II)   determine the dispute definitively, and in particular:              account of the distinctive characteristics of the
                                                                           present case.
       (1) annul the decision of the respondent's
             Complaints Committee of 1 July 1996;                    Ð     The appellant requests the Court of Justice to
                                                                           determine the entire dispute, since, in his view, the
       (2) rule that the appellant's retirement pension for                only matters to be decided are points of law.
             the period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1994 be
             recalculated and definitively determined on the         (1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998, p. 23.
             basis of the weightings for Berlin fixed annually
             by the Council;


title: Case T-56/07 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2007 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 14 December 2006 in Case F-122/05 Economidis v Commission

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/46

         Appeal brought on 23 February 2007 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 14 December 2006 in Case F-122/05 Economidis v Commission
   (Case T-56/07 P)
   (2007/C 95/94)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Ioannis Economidis (Woluwé-St-Etienne, Belgium)
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it upholds the first two pleas in law alleging illegality of the appointment procedure and breach of Article 29(1) and Article 31 of the Staff Regulations and annuls the appointment of another person to the post of Head of Unit ‘Biotechnology and applied genomics ’and, consequently, the rejection of the applicant's candidature for that post;

               —

               itself give judgment in the dispute, uphold the pleas submitted by the defendant at first instance and, accordingly, dismiss the application in Case F-122/05;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case beck to the Civil Service Tribunal for a decision on the remaining pleas;

               —

               order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs of the proceedings and also to bear his own costs before the Civil Service Tribunal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the judgment of 14 December 2006 which the appellant now seeks to have set aside, the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) annulled the Commission's decision of 23 December 2004 appointing another candidate to a post as Head of Unit and, consequently, rejecting the applicant's candidature.
   In support of its application to have that judgment set aside, the Commission raises three pleas in law, the first of which alleges incorrect application of the Kratz
       (1) decision in the present case in so far as the new rules applicable, including the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations and the Commission's ‘Middle Management ’decision (2), are different from those which were applicable in Kratz, a consideration which the Tribunal failed to take into account.
   The second plea put forward by the Commission alleges a contradiction in the grounds of the judgment under appeal, in that the Tribunal found, first of all, that the principle of separation of functions and grade was relevant, that the post could be filled solely by transfer, the grade being automatically that of the candidate chosen on the date of appointment, whereas it then concluded that posts must be published by pairs of two grades.
   Third, the Commission contends that if the obligation to publish posts as Head of Unit according to specific pairs of grades, as imposed on the institutions by the judgment under appeal, were to be upheld, the applicant at first instance would not have an interest in bringing proceedings and his action ought therefore to be dismissed as inadmissible. In the Commission's submission, the judgment under appeal thus exceeds the subject-matter of the application at first instance.

      (1)  Case T-10/94 Kratz v Commission [1995] ECR II-1455.

      (2)  Commission Decision C (2004) 1597 of 28 April 2004 relating to the middle management, published in Administrative Notices No 73/2004 of 23 June 2004.


title: Case C-503/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Secretario Judicial del Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer Único de Terrassa — Spain) — Ramón Margarit Panicello v Pilar Hernández Martínez (Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Registrar — Definition of ‘a court or tribunal’ — Compulsory jurisdiction — Exercise of judicial functions — Independence — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Secretario Judicial del Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer Único de Terrassa — Spain) — Ramón Margarit Panicello v Pilar Hernández Martínez
   (Case C-503/15) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Registrar - Definition of ‘a court or tribunal’ - Compulsory jurisdiction - Exercise of judicial functions - Independence - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   (2017/C 112/11)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Secretario Judicial del Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer Único de Terrassa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ramón Margarit Panicello

      Defendant: Pilar Hernández Martínez

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to rule on the request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Secretario Judicial del Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer Único de Terrassa (Registrar of the Single-Member Court dealing with matters involving violence against women, Terrassa, Spain).

      (1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 25 June 1997 in Case C-131/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Carlos Mora Romero v. Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz (Workers - Equal treatment - Orphan's benefits - Military service)

text:
16 . 8 . 97          I EN I                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 252/9
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Sixth Chamber)                                                          of 26 June 1997
                        of 25 June 1997                               in Case C-368/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                      from the Handelsgericht Wien): Vereinigte Familiapress
in Case C- 13 1/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling                Zeitungsverlags- und Vertriebs GmbH v. Heinrich Bauer
from the Bundessozialgericht): Carlos Mora Romero v.                                                 Verlag (')
          Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz (')                 (Measures having equivalent effect — Distribution of
                                                                      periodicals — Competition games — National
(Workers — Equal treatment — Orphan 's benefits —
                                                                                prohibition)
                        Military service)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/ 17 )
                           ( 97/C 252/16 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                 (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                   In Case C-368/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                      of the EC Treaty from the Handelsgericht Wien for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                      court between Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags
In Case C-131 /96 : reference to the Court under Article 177          und vertriebs GmbH and Heinrich Bauer Verlag — on the
of the EC Treaty by the Bundessozialgericht for a                     interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty — the Court,
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that             composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F.
court between Carlos Mora Romero and Landesversiche                  Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and L. Sevón,
rungsanstalt Rheinprovinz — on the interpretation of                  Presidents of Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn,
Articles 6, 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of               C. Gulmann, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of the Council of                       ( Rapporteur ) and R. Schintgen, Judges; M. G. Tesauro,
 15 October 1968 1612/68 on freedom of movement for                   Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
workers within the Community ( OJ, English Special                    given a judgment on 26 June 1997, in which it has ruled
                                                                      as follows :
Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber),
composed of: G. F. Mancini , President of the Chamber,
J. L. Murray, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur), G. Hirsch
and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                     Article 30 of the EC Treaty is to be interpreted as not
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                  precluding application of legislation of a Member State the
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 June 1997, in which            effect of which is to prohibit the distribution on its
 it has ruled :                                                       territory by an undertaking established in another Member
                                                                      State of a periodical produced in that latter State
                                                                       containing prize puzzles or competitions which are
                                                                       lawfully organized in that State, provided that that
Article 3 (1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the
                                                                      prohibition is proportionate to maintenance of press
                                                                      diversity and that that objective cannot be achieved by less
 Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
                                                                       restrictive means. This assumes, inter alia, that the
 security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
                                                                       newspapers offering the chance of winning a prize in
persons and to members of their families moving within                games, puzzles or competitions are in competition with
 the Community, as amended and updated by Council
                                                                      small newspaper publishers who are deemed to be unable
 Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983, must be
 interpreted as meaning that where the legislation of a                to offer comparable prizes and the prospect of winning is
                                                                       liable to bring about a shift in demand. Furthermore, the
 Member State provides for extension of the right to
                                                                       national prohibition must not constitute an obstacle to the
 orphan 's benefit beyond the age of 25 for recipients of
                                                                       marketing of newspapers which, albeit containing prize
 benefits whose tranining has been interrupted by their
                                                                      games, puzzles or competitions, do not give readers
 military service, that State is required to assimilate
 military service in another Member State to military                  residing in the Member State concerned the opportunity to
                                                                       win a prize. It is for the national court to determine
 service under its own legislation.
                                                                       whether those conditions are satisfied on the basis of a
                                                                       study of the national press market concerned.
 (') OJ No C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 16 , 20 . 1 . 1996 .


title: Case C-401/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — VDP Dental Laboratory NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13A(1)(e) — Scope of the exemption — Manufacture and repair of dental prostheses by an intermediary who does not have the status of dentist or dental technician — Subcontracting to a dental technician)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/17

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — VDP Dental Laboratory NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-401/05) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13A(1)(e) - Scope of the exemption - Manufacture and repair of dental prostheses by an intermediary who does not have the status of dentist or dental technician - Subcontracting to a dental technician)
   (2006/C 331/28)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: VDP Dental Laboratory NV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 13, 17 and 28 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Notion of ‘dental prostheses supplied by dentists and dental technicians’ — Supply effected by a taxable person who has subcontracted the manufacture of a dental prosthesis to a dental technician — Right to deduct VAT in the case of supply in another Member State which has excluded an exemption
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 13A(1)(e) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to supplies of dental prostheses effected by an intermediary like the one in question in the main proceedings who does not have the status of dentist or dental technician, but has acquired such prostheses from a dental technician.

      (1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.


title: Case T-424/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2006 — Angelidis v Parliament (Officials — Staff report — Action for annulment — No consultation of the previous immediate superior — Statement of reasons — Action for compensation — Late establishment — Non-material damage — Admissibility)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/38

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2006 — Angelidis v Parliament
   (Case T-424/04) (1)

   (Officials - Staff report - Action for annulment - No consultation of the previous immediate superior - Statement of reasons - Action for compensation - Late establishment - Non-material damage - Admissibility)
   (2006/C 331/83)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Angel Angelidis (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Mustapha Pacha and J. de Wachter, Agents)
   Re:
   In the first place, annulment of the staff report relating to the applicant, an official in Grade A 3 of the European Parliament, for the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002 and, second, application for compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by reason both of the alleged irregularities in the disputed staff report and of its allegedly late establishment
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.


title: Case T-226/07: Action brought on 20 June 2007 — Prana Haus v OHIM (PRANAHAUS)

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/37

         Action brought on 20 June 2007 — Prana Haus v OHIM (PRANAHAUS)
   (Case T-226/07)
   (2007/C 211/71)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Prana Haus (Freiburg, Germany) (represented by N. Hebeis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of 18 April 2007 in Case R 1611/2006-1;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to enter trade mark application No 4 839 916 ‘PRANAHAUS’ in the Register of Community trade marks and

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PRANAHAUS’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 35 (application No 4 839 916)

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since there is no absolute ground for refusal of registration of the trade mark applied for.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-369/08: Action brought on 4 September 2008 — EWRIA and Others v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/44

         Action brought on 4 September 2008 — EWRIA and Others v Commission
   (Case T-369/08)
   (2008/C 301/75)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: European Wire Rope Importers Association (EWRIA) (Hemer, Germany); Câbleries Namuroises SA (Namur, Belgium); Ropenhagen A/S (Vallensbæk Strand, Danemark); Eisen- und Stahlhandelsgesellschaft mbH (Kaarst, Germany); Heko Industrieerzeugnisse (Hemer, Germany); Interkabel Internationale Seil- und Kabel-Handels GmbH (Solms, Germany); Jose Casañ Colomar SA (Valencia, Spain); Denwire Ltd. (Dudley, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Lieber, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action admissible;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission of 4 July 2008, in which the Commission rejects applicants' request for a partial interim review of the antidumping measures on steel wire ropes (SWR) to adjust the scope of the measures and exclude general purpose ropes (GPR) from the product scope of the measures;

               —

               Require the Commission to initiate a partial interim review of the antidumping measures imposed on imports of SWR to adjust the scope of the measures and exclude GPR from the scope of the measures;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application the applicants seek annulment of the Commission decision of 4 July 2008 rejecting the applicants' request for partial interim review of the antidumping duty imposed on certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in the People's Republic of China, India, South Africa, Ukraine and the Russian Federation (1) in view of exclusion of general purpose ropes (GPR) from the product scope of the measure. The Commission refused to initiate the interim measure review on the grounds of lack of evidence that the two product types under the measures, steel wire ropes and general purpose ropes, do not share the same basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics.
   The applicants put forward three pleas in law in support of their claims.
   First, the applicants claim that the failure of the Community institutions to initiate a partial interim review constitutes a breach of Article 11(3) and Article 21 of the basic regulation (2). They state that the change of circumstances justifying an interim review may also refer to the definition of the product concerned.
   Second, the applicants submit that the failure of the Community institutions to initiate a partial interim review constitutes a breach of the applicants' legitimate expectations. They claim that the Commission itself had encouraged the applicants upon termination of expiry review concerning steel wire ropes originating in the People's Republic of China, India, South Africa and Ukraine to file a request for partial interim review to adjust the scope of the measures in question.
   Finally, the applicants claim that by failing to initiate an interim review the Community institutions committed a manifest error of assessment and breached Article 1(4) of the basic regulation when they based their findings on too broad scope of products which led them to compare unlike products and thus arrive at invalid findings.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1796/1999 of 12 August 1999 as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 of 8 November 2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of steel ropes and cables originating in the People's Republic of China, India, South Africa and Ukraine following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2005 L 299, p. 1) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1601/2001 of 2 August 2001 as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007 of 30 October 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in the Russian Federation, and repealing the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in Thailand and Turkey (OJ 2007 L 285, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of 10 July 2003 in Case C-87/01 P: Commission of the European Communities v Conseil des communes et régions d'Europe (CCRE) (Appeal — Commission decision effecting set-off between two claims governed by separate legal orders — Set-off in disregard of the rules of national law governing one of the claims concerned — Illegality)

text:
C 200/4                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                23.8.2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       2.    Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;
                                                                              3.    Reserves the costs.
                            of 3 July 2003
                                                                              (1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001 of OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
in Joined Cases C-83/01 P, C-93/01 P and C-94/01 P:
                    Chronopost and Others (1)
(Appeal — State aid — Postal sector — Public undertaking
entrusted with a service of general economic interest —
Logistical and commercial assistance to a subsidiary not
operating in a reserved sector — Concept of State aid —
Criterion of private operator acting under normal market                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                              conditions)
                                                                                of 10 July 2003
                           (2003/C 200/06)
                                                                              in Case C-87/01 P: Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                              nities v Conseil des communes et régions d'Europe
                                                                                (CCRE) (1)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                              (Appeal — Commission decision effecting set-off between
                                                                              two claims governed by separate legal orders — Set-off in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in     disregard of the rules of national law governing one of the
                      the European Court Reports)                                                claims concerned — Illegality)
                                                                                (2003/C 200/07)
In Joined Cases C-83/01 P, C-93/01 P and C-94/01 P, Chrono-
post SA, established in Issy-les-Moulineaux (France), (repre-                                      (Language of the case: French)
sented by V. Bouaziz Torron and D. Berlin) (C-83/01 P),
LaPoste, established in Boulogne-Billancourt (France) (repre-
sented by H. Lehman) (C-94/01 P) French Republic (Agents:                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
G. de Bergues and F. Million) (C-93/01 P): Appeals against the                                      the European Court Reports)
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of
14 December 2000 in Case T-613/97 Ufex and Others v
Commission [2000] ECR II-4055, seeking to have that judg-
ment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being:                   In Case C-87/01 P, Commission of the European Communities
Union française de l'express (Ufex), established in Roissy-en-                (Agents: P. Oliver and H. M. H. Speyart): Appeal against the
France (France), DHL International, established in Roissy-en-                 judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
France, Federal express international (France) SNC, established               Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 14 December 2000 in
in Gennevilliers (France), CRIE SA established in Asnières                    Case T-105/99 CEMR v Commission [2000] ECR II-4099,
(France) (represented by E. Morgan de Rivery and J. Derenne)                  seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to
and Commission of the European Communities, the Court,                        the proceedings being: Conseil des communes et régions d'Eu-
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-                         rope (CCRE), established in Paris (France) (represented by
P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) (Presidents of                     F. Herbert and F. Renard), the Court, composed of:
Chambers), C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris,                  G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, M. Wathelet and
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges;                     R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, A. La
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Admin-                  Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann, V. Skouris, N. Colneric, S. von
istrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July                   Bahr, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger,
2003, in which it:                                                            Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given
                                                                              a judgment on 10 July 2003, in which it:
1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the           1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
      European Communities of 14 December 2000 in Case T-613/                       European Communities of 14 December 2000 in Case T-105/
      97 Ufex and Others v Commission;                                              99 CEMR v Commission;
 ---pagebreak--- 23.8.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 200/5
2.    Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European                         1996 marketing campaign, calculated on the period February
      Communities contained in its letter to the Council of European                1997 to December 2000;
      Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) of 15 February 1999,
      effecting set-off of their mutual claims;                               2.    Ordered the Hellenic Republic and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities to bear their own costs;
3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those
      incurred by the Council of European Municipalities and Regions          3.    Ordered the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of
      (CEMR) both at first instance and in connection with the                      Spain to bear their own costs.
      appeal.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
(1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 3 July 2003
                            of 12 June 2003
                                                                              in Case C-156/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-148/01: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the                       the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands): R.P. van der
                      European Communities (1)                                Duin v Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij ANOZ Zorgver-
                                                                              zekeringen UA, and between Onderlinge Waarborg-
                                                                              maatschappij ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen UA and T.W. van
(EAGGF — Clearing of accounts — Additional levy on milk                                           Wegberg-van Brederode (1)
— Late payment interest — Application for partial annul-
                  ment of Decision 2001/137/EC)
                                                                              (Social security — Pensioners and members of their family
                                                                              residing in a Member State other than the State liable for
                            (2003/C 200/08)                                   payment of the pension — Medical costs incurred in the
                                                                              Member State liable for payment of the pension — Condi-
                      (Language of the case: Greek)                           tions for assumption of responsibility — Competent Member
                                                                              State and competent institution — Articles 21, 22, 28 and
                                                                                31 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                       the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2003/C 200/09)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case C-148/01: Hellenic Republic (Agent: V. Kontolaimos
and C. Tsiavou) supported by Federal Republic of Germany
(Agents: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma) and Kingdom of Spain                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
(Agent: M. López-Monís Gallego, subsequently S. Ortiz                                               the European Court Reports)
Vaamonde) against Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Condou-Durande — application for partial annul-
ment of Commission Decision 2001/137/EC of 5 February
                                                                              In Case C-156/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
2001 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure
                                                                              EC by the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) for a
incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of
                                                                              preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
                                                                              court between R.P. van der Duin and Onderlinge Waarborg-
(EAGGF) (OJ 2001 L 50, p. 9) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
                                                                              maatschappij ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen UA, and between
composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
                                                                              Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen
R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, F. Macken and J. N. Cunha
                                                                              UA and T. W. van Wegberg-van Brederode on the interpreta-
Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate
                                                                              tion of Articles 21, 22(1)(c), 28 and 31 of Council Regulation
General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 June
                                                                              (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
2003, in which it:
                                                                              social security schemes to employed persons and their families
                                                                              moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
1.    Annulled Commission Decision 2001/137/EC of 5 February                  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ
      2001 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure             1983 L 230, p. 6), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
      incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of            M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, C. W. A. Timmermans,
      the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                   A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges;
      (EAGGF) in so far as it imposed on the Hellenic Republic a              D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Prin-
      financial adjustment by way of late payment interest accruing           cipal Administrator for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      on the late payment of the additional levy due for the 1995/            3 July 2003, in which it has ruled:


title: Case C-14/03: Action brought on 13 January 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
22.2.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 44/19
Action brought on 10 January 2003 by Commission of                          Action brought on 13 January 2003 by the Commission
   the European Communities against Republic of Finland                     of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Austria
                          (Case C-10/03)
                                                                                (Case C-14/03)
                          (2003/C 44/34)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/35)
An action against the Republic of Finland was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
10 January 2003 by the Commission of the European                           before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Communities, represented by C. Tufvesson and M. Huttunen,                   on 13 January 2003 by the Commission of the European
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                  Communities, represented by J.C. Schieferer, of its Legal
                                                                            Service, and L. Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, with an
                                                                            address for service at Wagner Centre C 254, Luxembourg-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Kirchberg.
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                            The Commission of the European Communities claims that
       administrative measures required by Directive 1999/42/
                                                                            the Court should:
       EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) of
       7 June 1999 establishing a mechanism for the recognition
       of qualifications in respect of the professional activities          (a)   declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
       covered by the Directives on liberalisation and transitional               obligations under Article 5 of Council Directive 92/72/
       measures and supplementing the general systems for the                     EEC on air pollution by ozone (1), in conjunction with
       recognition of qualifications, or at least in failing to notify            Annex I, points 3 and 4, thereto, in that it has laid down:
       those measures to the Commission, the Republic of
       Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations, and                          (1) a population information threshold (early warning
                                                                                stage) which is 20 µg/m3 higher than that in Annex I,
(2) order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.                                     point 3, to the Directive,
                                                                                (2) contrary to Article 5 of the Directive, the require-
                                                                                ment that the thresholds value be exceeded at two
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                         measuring points at least before the public is
                                                                                informed, and
According to Article 249 of the EC Treaty, a directive is                         (3) a mean value over three hours instead of over one
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member                              hour, as laid down in Annex I, points 3 and 4, to
State, but leaves to the national authorities the choice of form                        the Directive
and methods.
                                                                                and therefore has not fully ensured, in accordance with
                                                                                the circumstances provided for in the Directive, that the
The Member States must adopt the measures necessary to                            population will be informed or warned when thresholds
incorporate the directive in the national legal system by the                     are exceeded. The Republic of Austria has accordingly
time limit fixed and must notify those measures to the                            failed fully to comply with Directive 92/72/EEC;
Commission without delay.
                                                                            (b)   order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
The Commission finds that the Republic of Finland has not yet
adopted those measures, or at least has not notified them to it.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
It is settled law that the Member States may not plead internal
circumstances or practical problems to justify a failure to                 The Republic of Austria has failed fully to implement in
implement by the date fixed.                                                Austrian law the provisions in Directive 92/72/EEC concerning
                                                                            the level of the threshold for ozone concentrations in the air
                                                                            (Annex I, point 3, to the Directive), the requirement that the
( 1) OJ L 201 of 31 July 1999, p. 77.                                       public be informed when values are exceeded at a single
                                                                            measuring point (Article 5 of the Directive) and the mean
                                                                            values used in setting thresholds (Annex I, points 3 and 4, to
                                                                            the Directive).
 ---pagebreak--- C 44/20               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.2.2003
Population information threshold:                                      considered likely to remain at or exceed that level. The
                                                                       Directive does not provide for such a restrictive requirement.
Article 5 of the Directive provides that public information is
triggered by exceeding the threshold in Annex I, point 3,              Setting of thresholds as the mean value over one hour:
while the Austrian law on ozone (the Ozongesetz) does not
differentiate between the three stages laid down therein (early        The Austrian Ozongesetz defines warning levels as a mean
warning, stage I warning and stage II warning) with respect to         value in mg/m3 over three hours. In contrast, thresholds under
public information. While Annex I to the Austrian Ozongesetz           Annex I, points 3 and 4, to the Directive are set as mean values
provides that a preliminary warning is triggered only when a           over one hour. The Austrian definition can result in a
threshold value of 0,200 mg/m3 is exceeded (200 µg/m3),                substantially lower number of warnings, that is, cases of
Article 5 of the Directive in conjunction with Annex I, point 3,       information being provided to the public, than required under
thereto sets the threshold at 180 µg/m3 (0,180 mg/m3).                 the Directive.
                                                                       Those three differences as regards the determination and
Threshold values exceeded at two measuring points:                     establishment of threshold values can result in the Austrian
                                                                       public being informed to a lesser extent than provided for in
Under the Austrian Ozongesetz, the early warning stage for an          Article 5 of the Directive, in conjunction with Annex I,
ozone monitoring area is triggered only when the warning               points 3 and 4 thereto.
value has been exceeded at at least two measuring points in an
ozone monitoring area within the last 12 hours and is                  (1 ) OJ 1992 L 297, p. 1.


title: Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Pablo Jimenez Fernandez against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-101/97)

text:
14 . 6 . 97             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 181 / 19
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Willem Stols against                   — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
              the Council of the European Union
                           ( Case T-99/97)                               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                             ( 97/C 181 /36 )
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                         Case T-16/97 f 1 ).
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 7 April 1997 by Willem Stols, residing
at Halsteren ( Netherlands ), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
Rue de Cessange.                                                         Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Pablo Jimenez
                                                                         Fernandez against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                ( Case T-101 /97 )
— annul the Council's decision of 13 August 1996                                                      ( 97/C 181 /38 )
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                                          (Language of the case: French)
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
     adopted by the Council on 27 December 1996                          Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                      by Pablo Jimenez Fernandez, residing at Overijse
                                                                         ( Belgium ), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                             Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-16/97 ( M.
                                                                         — annul the Commission's decision of 17 June 1996
                                                                               rejecting the applicant's request that it give
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                          consideration to the possible application of
                                                                               Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                         — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                                adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Andre Pening against
                                                                                expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
        the Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-100/97 )                              — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                             ( 97/C 181 /37 )
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
An action against the Commission of the European                         Case T-16/97 (').
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997                     ( 1 ) OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
by Andre Pening, residing at Waterloo ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Massimo Lombardini
                                                                              against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the Commission's decision of 12 June 1996
                                                                                ( Case T- 102/97)
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                                                     ( 97/C 181 /39 )
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                       An action against the Commission of the European
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                      Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-350/12 P: Appeal brought on 24 July 2012 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 4 May 2012 in Case T-529/09: Sophie in ’t Veld v Council of the European Union

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/16

         Appeal brought on 24 July 2012 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 4 May 2012 in Case T-529/09: Sophie in ’t Veld v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-350/12 P)
   2012/C 303/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Berman, B. Driessen, Cs. Fekete, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Sophie in ’t Veld, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the contested judgment of the General Court;

               —

               give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal;

         and

               —

               order the Applicant in Case T-529/09 to pay the costs of the Council arising from that case and from the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal concerns the interpretation of the exceptions relating to the protection of the public interest as regards international relations and to the protection of legal advice. These exceptions are set out respectively in an absolute exception to the right of public access in the third indent of Article 4(1)(a) and in a qualified exception to the right of public access in the second indent of Article 4(2) of the Regulation (1).
   The Council submits that the General Court, in its interpretation of the said exceptions, made four mistakes.
   First, the General Court errs in holding that a disagreement on the choice of a legal basis cannot undermine the EU's interests in international relations (first limb of the first plea). Disputes on Union competence and on the choice of the legal basis between the institutions are closely intertwined with conflicts on the substance of international agreements. Disputes on competence between the institutions may moreover impact on the negotiating position of the EU, adversely affect its credibility as a negotiating partner and jeopardise the outcome of the negotiations.
   Secondly, the General Court applied the wrong standard of review and replaced the Council's assessment of the significance for international relations of the document concerned with its own (second limb of the first plea). In relation to the protection of the public interest in international relations, the standard of review if one that accords ‘wide discretion’ to the institution concerned rather than requiring the demonstration of ‘actual and specific’ harm. The General Court erred in law in carrying out a full review of the Council's reasons by applying the ‘actual and specific’ harm requirement, thereby replacing the Council's assessment of the foreign policy consequences of the public release of the document with its own assessment.
   Thirdly, the General Court erred in law by failing to consider both the sensitive content of the requested legal opinion and the specific circumstances prevailing at the time that access was sought (first limb of the second plea). The matter dealt with in the legal opinion relates to sensitive international negotiations which were still on-going at the time of the access request, where essential and vital interests in the area of transatlantic cooperation on the prevention and combating of terrorism and terrorist financing were at stake and where the issue of the choice of the legal basis addressed in the legal opinion was the subject of disagreement between the institutions. The General Court overlooked these specific characteristics of the legal advice.
   Last, the General Court erroneously assimilated the negotiation and conclusion of an international agreement with the institutions’ legislative activities for the purposes of applying the overriding public interest test (second limb of the second plea). By doing so, the General Court overlooked important differences between the negotiation of international agreements, where public participation is necessarily restricted in view of the strategic and tactical interests at stake, and the conclusion and transposition of such agreements.

      (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 L 145, p. 43