title: Case C-622/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance, Namur (Belgium) lodged on 22 December 2010 — Rémi Paquot v État Belge — SPF Finances

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance, Namur (Belgium) lodged on 22 December 2010 — Rémi Paquot v État Belge — SPF Finances
   (Case C-622/10)
   2011/C 80/24
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance, Namur

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rémi Paquot

      Defendant: État Belge — SPF Finances

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Article 6 of Title I, ‘Common Provisions’, of the Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 amending the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992 and in force since 1 December 2009 (substantially reproducing the provisions previously laid down in Article 6 of Title I of the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, which itself entered into force on 1 November 1993) and Article 234 (formerly Article 177) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty) of 25 March 1957, on the one hand, and/or Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, on the other, preclude national legislation — in the present case, Article 9(2) of the Belgian Law of 6 January 1989 on the Cour d’arbitrage (now called the Cour constitutionnelle) — under which the national courts are required to follow the case-law flowing from judgments delivered by a court which occupies a higher rank in the national court system (in the present case, the Cour constitutionnelle, referred to above) in actions for annulment of provisions of domestic law brought before them, where those actions are based on an alleged infringement of provisions of European Union law, which is directly applicable in the domestic legal order and takes precedence over domestic law?

               2.

               Do Article 6 of Title I, ‘Common Provisions’, of the Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 amending the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992 and in force since 1 December 2009 (substantially reproducing the provisions previously laid down in Article 6 of Title I of the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, which itself entered into force on 1 November 1993) and Article 234 (formerly Article 177) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty) of 25 March 1957, on the one hand, and/or Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, on the other hand, preclude national legislation — in the present case, Article 26(4) of the Belgian Law of 6 January 1989 on the Cour d’arbitrage (now called the Cour constitutionnelle), as amended by the Law of 12 July 2009, whether read separately or in conjunction with Article 9(2) of that Special Law of 6 January 1989 — under which the national courts are required to refer to a court which occupies a higher rank in the national court system (in the present case, the Cour constitutionnelle, referred to above), for a preliminary ruling, any question concerning the interpretation of provisions of European Union law, which is directly applicable in the domestic legal order and takes precedence over domestic law, where those provisions are also laid down in the national Constitution and where the national courts suppose those provisions to have been infringed in the circumstances of the disputes brought before them, with the result that those courts have been divested of jurisdiction to apply European Union law immediately, at the very least in cases where the higher court has already ruled on an identical issue?


title: Case C-17/02: Action brought on 28 January 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 68/8                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        16.3.2002
Action brought on 28 January 2002 by the Commission                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                        —     Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
                         (Case C-17/02)                                       and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Commission Directive 2000/71/EC to adapt the
                                                                              measuring methods as laid down in Annexes I, II, III and
                         (2002/C 68/14)                                       IV to Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and
                                                                              of the Council to technical progress as foreseen in
                                                                              Article 10 of that Directive (OJ 2000 L 287, p. 46) or in
                                                                              any event by not notifying the same to the Commission,
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                 the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 january                    under Article 2 of that directive;
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by L. Pignatora and S. Rating, acting as Agents.            —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Declare that, by not having notified the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      the provisions of Commission Directive 99/64/EC                   Article 249 EC, which provides that a directive is to be binding
      amending Commission Directive 90/388/EEC, or not                  as to the result to be achieved on each Member State to which
      having adopted the measures necessary to comply with              it is addressed, implies an obligation that the Member States
      the same, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its           comply with the time-limits for transposition prescribed by
      obligations under that directive;                                 directives. In the present case the prescribed period expired on
                                                                        1 January 2001 without the Italian Republic having adopted
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                      the provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
                                                                        to in the form of order sought by the Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Article 249 EC, which provides that a directive is to be binding
as to the result to be achieved on each Member State to which           Action brought on 29 January 2002 by the Commission
it is addressed, implies an obligation that the Member States           of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
comply with the time-limits for transposition prescribed by
directives. In the present case the prescribed period expired on
30 April 2000 without the Italian Republic having adopted                                        (Case C-22/02)
the provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
to in the form of order sought by the Commission.
                                                                                (2002/C 68/16)
                                                                        An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 January
                                                                        2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi, acting as
Action brought on 29 January 2002 by the Commission                     Agents.
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                         (Case C-21/02)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
                         (2002/C 68/15)                                       and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                              the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the
                                                                              availability of consumer information on fuel economy
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                 and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 January                    passenger cars (OJ 2000 L 12, p. 16) or in any event by
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           not notifying the same to the Commission, the Italian
represented by G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi, acting as                    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12
Agents.                                                                       of that directive;


title: Case T-345/02: Action brought on 21 November 2002 by European Dynamics against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
25.1.2003             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 19/39
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
By his application, the applicant seeks the annulment of the             1.     annul the Commission’s (EUROSTAT) decision to elimin-
decision of the appointing authority rejecting his complaint                    ate European Dynamics from the procurement procedure
requesting the annulment of the elections to the local staff                    for the Call for Tenders 2002/S 106-083279 - Lot 1 for
committee in Luxembourg of November 2001.                                       the ‘Further development of the Collaborative Software
                                                                                CIRCA’;
According to the applicant, the list put forward by the                  2.     order the Commission (EUROSTAT) to evaluate the
‘Solidarité Européenne’ union obtained only one of the 20                       tender submitted by European Dynamics in the above
seats to be filled on the local staff committee, whereas the                    mentioned procurement procedure and allow European
number of votes for the members of that union constituted                       Dynamics to participate fully and on the same basis as all
25,523 % of the total votes cast.                                               the other tenderers;
In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges:                      3.     order the Commission to pay European Dynamics’ legal
                                                                                and other fees and expenses incurred in connection with
—     infringement of Article 9(3) of the Staff Regulations,                    this application.
—     infringement of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff
      Regulations,
—     infringement of Article 6 of the rules on the composition          Pleas in law and main arguments
      and functioning of the staff committee,
—     manifest error of assessment.
                                                                         The applicant is a company involved in the area of information
                                                                         technology and communications. It participated in the Call for
                                                                         Tenders 2002/S 106 -083279, for ‘Eurostat information
The applicant claims that the abovementioned provisions                  systems: information and communication technologies for the
require a faithful representation, on the local staff committee,         Community statistical system’ and, more particularly, Lot 1 of
of all the tendencies expressed through the ballot box. Such             the Call for Tenders, ‘further development of the collaborative
representation is not sufficiently guaranteed where more than            software CIRCA’. The applicant’s tender was rejected by the
a quarter of the total votes cast by officials results in the            defendant because of the absence of details concerning the
appointment of only 1/20th of the members of the staff                   educational and professional qualifications in the curriculum
committee.                                                               vitae of at least one of the experts, in a team of 27 persons.
                                                                         In support of its application, the applicant submits that
                                                                         the decision to reject its tender breaches the principle of
                                                                         proportionality. The tender was rejected because of the
                                                                         absence of details in one curriculum vitae, whereas the tender
Action brought on 21 November 2002 by European                           requirements referred in broad and general terms to the
Dynamics against the Commission of the European Com-                     experience of the team, without any further specification.
                            munities
                        (Case T-345/02)                                  The applicant furthermore alleges that the contested decision
                                                                         is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. According to the
                                                                         applicant, the defendant failed to exercise its power to seek
                        (2003/C 19/74)                                   clarification on this matter and therefore breached its duty of
                                                                         care and the principle of good administration.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         The applicant also claims that by not seeking clarification and
                                                                         thereby eliminating the applicant’s tender, the defendant did
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                not respect the equal treatment of tenderers. According to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               the applicant, an evaluation committee does not enjoy an
European Communities on 21 November 2002 by European                     unfettered discretion to seek or not to seek clarification
Dynamics (Athens), represented by W. Knapp, Rechtsanwalt,                concerning an individual tender regardless of objective con-
and D. Spanou, Advocate.                                                 siderations and free from judicial supervision.
 ---pagebreak--- C 19/40                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.1.2003
The applicant finally submits that the defendant committed               by Admira, by means of an exchange of shares. According to
serious procedural irregularities. More particularly, the defend-        the notification, following the successful completion of the
ant did not respect the principle of good administration, the            abovementioned operation, the resulting undertaking would
right of parties to be heard and the duty to state reasons for its       come under the joint control of Prisa and Groupe Canal+.
decisions.
                                                                         In support of its arguments, the applicants allege:
                                                                         —     lack of competence of the Commission, in that it is not
                                                                               empowered to refer a case to the authorities of a
                                                                               Member State when the markets concerned affect intra-
                                                                               Community trade and more than one Member State;
Action brought on 22 November 2002 by Cableuropa,
S.A., Región de Murcia de Cable, S.A., Valencia de Cable,
                                                                         —     infringement of Article 9 of the abovementioned regu-
S.A., Mediterránea Sur Sistemas de Cable, S.A., y Mediter-
                                                                               lation on concentrations in that the contested decision
ránea Norte Sistemas de Cable, S.A. against Commission
                                                                               makes a ‘blank’ reference to the national authorities;
                of the European Communities
                                                                         —     failure to observe the obligation to provide reasons,
                         (Case T-346/02)                                       specifically as regards the exceptional nature of the
                                                                               reference in cases in which the markets in question affect
                         (2003/C 19/75)                                        a substantial part of the common market.
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                        (1 ) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 November 2002 by Cableuropa,
S.A. (having its registered office in Aravaca, Madrid), Región
de Murcia de Cable, S.A. (having its registered office in Murcia,        Action brought on 22 November 2002 by Aunacable,
Spain), Valencia de Cable, S.A. (having its registered office in         S.A.Unipersonal, Retecal Sociedad Operadora de Teleco-
Madrid), Mediterránea sur Sistemas de Cable, S.A. (having its            municaciones de Castilla y León, S.A., Euskaltel, S.A.,
registered office in Alicante, Spain) y Mediterránea Norte               Telecable de Avilés, S.A. Unipersonal, Telecable de Ovie-
Sistemas de Cable, S.A. (having its registered office in Castellón,      do, S.A. Unipersonal, Telecable de Gijón, S.A. Uniper-
Spain), represented by Luis Felipe Castresana Sánchez and                sonal, R Cable y Telecomunicaciones Galicia, S.A., and
Gonzalo Samaniego Bordiu, lawyers.                                       Tenaria S.A. against Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-347/02)
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2002
      referring Case COMP/M.2845 - Sogecable/Canalsatélite                                          (2003/C 19/76)
      Digital/Vía Digital to the competent authorities in the
      Kingdom of Spain pursuant to Article 9 of Council
      Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89;                                                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
—     order the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          European Communities on 22 November 2002 by Aunacable,
                                                                         S.A.Unipersonal (having its registered office in Madrid), Retecal
                                                                         Sociedad Operadora de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León,
The decision contested by the present application concerns the           S.A. (having its registered office in Boecilli, Valladolid, Spain),
notification, pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC)          Euskaltel, S.A.(having its registered office in Zamudio-Bizkaia),
No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of                         Telecable de Avilés, S.A. Unipersonal (registered in Avilés),
concentrations between undertakings ( 1), of a planned concen-           Telecable de Oviedo, S.A. Unipersonal (having its registered
tration by which Sogecable SA, controlled by Promotora de                office in Oviedo), Telecable de Gijón, S.A. Unipersonal (having
Informaciones S.A (Prisa) and Groupe Canal +S.A., the latter             its registered office in Gijón), R Cable y Telecomunicaciones
belonging to the Vivendi Universal group, signs an agreement             Galicia, S.A.(having its registered office in A Coruña, Spain)
with the Admira Media S.A. group, belonging to the Telefónica            and Tenaria S.A.(having its registered office in Cordovilla,
S.A group, with the aim of merging Sogecable and DTS                     Navarra, Spain), represented by Antonio Creus Carreras,
Distribuidora de Televisión Digital S.A. (Vía Digital), controlled       Natalia Lacalle Mangas and José Mª Jiménez Laiglesia, lawyers.


title: Case C-55/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln by order of that court of  26 January 2006  in Arcor AG & Co. KG v Federal Republic of Germany, interested party: Deutsche Telekom AG

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln by order of that court of 26 January 2006 in Arcor AG & Co. KG v Federal Republic of Germany, interested party: Deutsche Telekom AG
   (Case C-55/06)
   (2006/C 96/05)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Administrative Court, Cologne) (Germany) of 26 January 2006, received at the Court Registry on 2 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Arcor AG & Co. KG and Federal Republic of Germany, interested party: Deutsche Telekom AG, on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000 (1) to be understood as meaning that the conditions for cost-orientation under Article 3(3) of that regulation lay down minimum requirements in the sense that national law of the Member States may not deviate from that standard to the prejudice of beneficiaries?

               2.

               Are imputed interest and cost-accounting depreciation also encompassed by the cost-orientation requirement under Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000?

               3.

               If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           Is the calculation basis for that interest and depreciation the replacement value of the assets after the depreciation made prior to the time of valuation, or is the calculation basis exclusively the current replacement value, expressed in terms of current daily prices at the time of valuation?

                           (b)

                           In any event, do the costs used as the calculation basis for imputed interest and cost-accounting depreciation, in particular those which are not directly associated with service (overheads), have to be proven by comprehensible documents detailing the costs of the notified operator?

                           (c)

                           If Question 3(b) is to be answered either entirely or partially in the negative:
                           May the costs alternatively be proven by a valuation made on the basis of an analytical cost model?
                           Which methodological and other substantive requirements do those alternative methods of valuation have to satisfy?

                           (d)

                           Is the national regulatory authority entitled, when assessing cost-orientation in the context of its authority under Article 4(1) to (3) of Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000, to a so-called scope for evaluation which is subject only to limited judicial control?

                           (e)

                           If Question 3(d) is to be answered in the affirmative:
                           Is that scope also applicable, in particular, to methods of cost calculation and questions of determining the appropriate amount of imputed interest (for borrowed and/or own capital) and appropriate depreciation periods?
                           Where do the boundaries of that scope lie?

                           (f)

                           Do the cost-orientation requirements at least serve to protect the rights of competitors as beneficiaries, with the consequence that those competitors can make use of legal protection against rates for access which are not set on the basis of cost-orientation?

                           (g)

                           Does the notified operator bear the burden of unprovability (burden of proof) if, in the supervisory procedure under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000 or in the subsequent judicial proceedings, costs are totally or partially unverifiable?

                           (h)

                           If Questions 3(f) and 3(g) are to be answered in the affirmative:
                           Is the burden of proof for the cost-orientation also on the notified operator if a beneficiary competitor brings an action against rates approved by a regulatory authority under national law on the ground that, since they were not set on the basis of cost-orientation, the approved rates for access are too high?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 336, p. 4.


title: Case C-148/99: Action brought on 22 April 1999 by the United Kingdom against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 188/20               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         3.7.1999
     effected after the entry into force of the guidelines for         3) In the absence of appropriate technical and/or scientific
     the application of flat-rate adjustments fixed by the                  justification for the limitation, the limitation of the area
     Commission. In any event, in its final report the concili-             for which aid was payable under the Scheme must be
     ation body itself expressed the view that the Commission               considered as arbitrary. Accordingly, to the extent that it
     had not given sufficient reasons for applying the 25% rate.            limits aid payable under the Scheme to 100 ha, the
                                                                            contested decision is inadequately reasoned, arbitrary and
                                                                            thereby contrary to Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
(1) OJ No L 61 of 10.3.1999, p. 37.
                                                                       4) The contested decision is a legislative act which retro-
                                                                            actively imposes a limitation of 100 ha under the Scheme
                                                                            contrary to the fundamental principles of legal certainty
                                                                            and legitimate expectations. Accordingly, to the extent that
                                                                            it limits the aid payable under the Scheme to 100 ha, the
                                                                            contested decision is void.
Action brought on 22 April 1999 by the United Kingdom
  against the Commission of the European Communities                   (1) of 28 April 1989, laying down detailed rules concerning the aid
                                                                           for fibre flax and hemp, OJ L 121,29.04.89, p. 4.
                                                                       (2) of the Council of 29 June 1970 on the common organisation of
                         (Case C-148/99)                                   the market in flax and hemp, OJ English Special Edition 1970(II),
                                                                           p. 411.
                         (1999/C 188/44)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 22 April 1999 by the United Kingdom,
represented by Mr John E. Collins, Assistant Treasury Solicitor,
acting as agent, assisted by Mr Alastair Sutton, Barrister of the
Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14, boulevard Roosevelt.            Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
                                                                       gerichtshof by order of that court of 23 March 1999 in
                                                                       the case of Johannes Blachnitzky v Landes- Grundver-
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                            kehrskommission beim Amt der Tiroler Landesregierung
— annul those parts of the contested decision which disallow
     the sum of £869,283.00 from the monies allocated to the                                     (Case C-149/99)
     United Kingdom under the scheme set out in Commission
     Regulation 1164/89/EEC (1);
                                                                                (1999/C 188/45)
— order the Commission to pay the United Kingdom’s costs.
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Verwaltungsgericht-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        shof (Administrative Court), Austria, of 23 March 1999, which
                                                                       was received at the Court Registry on 22 April 1999, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of Johannes Blachnitzky v
                                                                       Landes-Grundverkehrskommission beim Amt der Tiroler Lan-
1) Regulation 1164/89/EEC contains no provision limiting
                                                                       desregierung on the following questions:
     Member States’ discretion in deciding on the relevant
     parameters for reviewing the varieties they decide to
     introduce under the Regulation. There is nothing in the           1. Is Article 1(1) of Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June
     Regulation which imposes a limit of 100 ha (nor even any               1990 on the right of residence (1) in conjunction with
     mention of acreage limitations). The contested decision is             Articles 2(3) and 3 of that directive and possibly in
     based on a misinterpretation of the Regulation and is                  conjunction with Article 6 of the EC Treaty to be
     therefore illegal to the extent that it imposes a limit of             interpreted as meaning that a directly effective right of
     100 ha on the aid payable under the Scheme.                            nationals of another Member State of the European Union
                                                                            to acquire land as a principal residence is in principle to be
2) In taking the contested decision, the Commission in effect               derived therefrom?
     introduced a legislative measure having the effect of
     limiting the scope of Regulation 1164/89/EEC. It did so in        2. Does the acquisition of land by a national of another
     the guise of an administrative decision. It failed to follow           Member State of the European Union in a Member State
     the procedures under Article 12 of Regu-                               for which he possesses a corresponding residence permit
     lation 1308/70/EEC (2). Accordingly, to the extent that it             for nationals of an EU Member State and where he has
     limits the aid payable under the Scheme to 100 ha, the                 his principal residence come under the provisions of
     contested decision is void for manifest lack of competence             Article 73b(l) of the EC Treaty on free movement of capital
     and/or infringement of an essential procedural require-                or those of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988
     ment, in particular of the procedures provided for in                  for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (2) (the
     Article 12 of Regulation 1308/70/EEC.                                  capital transfer directive)?


title: Action brought on 28 March 1997 by British Shoe Corporation and others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-73/97)

text:
31 . 5 . 97          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         No C 166/ 17
     basing themselves on a subsequent certificate issued            be regarded as a 'like product' to injection-moulded
     by Dafse which requires the application of criteria             footwear. There are significant differences, notably in
     of accounting procedure and sound financial                     manufacturing materials, production processes, technical
     administration    which    were     not   made     known        and physical characteristics, price, packaging and
     beforehand, at the relevant time or afterwards,                 marketing. The Commission's decision to impose an
                                                                     antidumping duty 94,1 % on vulcanized footwear is
                                                                     therefore unlawful .
— the decisions breach the applicant's rights of defence .
                                                                     The applicants also plead infringement of Article 190 of
                                                                     the Treaty. They submit that the inadequate reasoning
                                                                     contained in Regulation ( EC ) No 165/97 prevents the
Action brought on 28 March 1997 by British Shoe                      Court of First Instance from discharging its duty to review
                                                                     the question whether the defendant has determined the
Corporation and others against the Commission of the
                   European Communities
                                                                     correct level of antidumping duty. The first objection to
                                                                     the Commission's approach is its failure to take into
                       ( Case T-73/97 )                              account the difference between vulcanized and injection
                         97/C 166/36                                 moulded footwear. Furthermore, the arithmetical basis
                                                                     underlying the level of provisional duty is neither sound
                (Language of the case: English)                      nor adequately reasoned .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    They further submit that the Commission has committed a
Instance of the European Communities on 28 March 1997                manifest error of appraisal in its assessment of the
by British Shoe Corporation and others, represented by               ' Community interest'. The contested measure implies that
Alasdair Bell , Solicitor, Society of Scotland, and Mark             the distribution system can and will absorb much of the
Powell, Solicitor, England, with an address for service in           antidumping duty. However, the Commission adduces no
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 1 1 rue               evidence for this at all, other than identifying the level of
Goethe, Luxembourg.                                                  gross margin between import and resale as 100% . There
                                                                     is no consideration of the cost structure covered by this
                                                                     margin, the profit level in it, or the capacity of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          distribution system to absorb a significant part of the
                                                                     duty. As retail prices of imported footwear have already
— annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 165/97                       increased substantially, the Commission's assessment of
     imposing provisional anti-dumping duties on imports             the situation is contradicted by the facts .
     of textile upper footwear originating in the People's
     Republic of China and Indonesia,
                                                                     The applicants next claim that, in breach of Article 3 ( 1 )
— take such other steps as justice may require,                      of Regulation ( EC ) No 3283/94, read in conjunction with
                                                                     Article 5 (4 ) thereof, the Commission has, in the present
                                                                     case, ignored the fact that before it may lawfully impose
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the applicant             antidumping duties it must establish material injury in
     companies in the present proceedings.                           relation to a group of EU producers collectively
                                                                      representing 25 % of EU production of the like product.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant companies in the present case are all major            They plead, finally, breach of the principle of
importers and retailers of footwear in the European                  proportionality as regards the level of antidumping duties
Union . They import substantial quantities of footwear                fixed in the contested Regulation. On this point they lay
from China and Indonesia, countries that have been the                particular stress on the fact that it is practically impossible
subject of an antidumping investigation resulted in the               to obtain supplies of vulcanized footwear in the
adoption of Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 165/97 ( ] ),             Community.
imposing provisional antidumping duties of 94,1 % and
 36,5 % respectively on textile footwear from China and               ( J ) Regulation ( EC ) No 165/97 of 28 January 1997 imposing a
Indonesia . It is that Regulation which the applicants seek                 provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of footwear which
to have annulled .                                                          textile uppers originating in the People's Republic of China
                                                                            and Indonesia ( OJ No L 29, 31 . 1 . 1997, p. 3 ).
                                                                      ( 2 ) Regulation ( EC ) No 3283/94 of 22 December 1994 on
The applicants plead infringements of Article 1 ( 4 ) of                    protection against dumped imports from countries not
 Regulation ( EC ) No 3283/94 ( 2 ) in that the Commission is               members of the European Community ( OT No L 349 , 31 . 12 .
 mistaken, both in fact and in law, in its treatment of the                 1994 , p. 1 ).
 issue of 'like product' within the meaning of that
 provision. According to them, vulcanized footwear cannot


C 247/28              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                26.8.2000
       Removal from the register of Case C-405/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-417/98 P (1)
                         (2000/C 247/43)                                                     (2000/C 247/47)
By order of 4 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 10 May 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-405/99: Commission of the European            the register of Case C-417/98 P: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                    Communities v Primex Produkte Import-Export GmbH & Co.
                                                                     KG, Gebr. Kruse GmbH Kai Interporc Im- und Export GmbH.
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-426/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-156/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 247/44)
                                                                                (2000/C 247/48)
By order of 6 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             By order of 10 May 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-426/99 (reference for a preliminary           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ruling from the Oberlandesgericht, Düsseldorf): Connaught            the register of Case C-156/99: Commission of the European
Laboratories Inc. v SmithKline Beecham Pharma GmbH and               Communities v French Republic.
SmithKline Beecham Biologicals Manufacturing SA.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-355/99 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-168/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 247/45)                                                     (2000/C 247/49)
By order of 7 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 11 May 2000 the President of the First Chamber
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
the register of Case C-355/99: Commission of the European            ordered the removal from the register of Case C-168/99:
Communities v Ireland.                                               Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
                                                                     Spain.
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-412/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 247/46)                                    Removal from the register of Case C-229/99 (1)
By order of 18 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice                              (2000/C 247/50)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-412/99: Commission of the European            By order of 15 May 2000 the President of the First Chamber
Communities v Republic of Austria.                                   of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
                                                                     ordered the removal from the register of Case C-229/99:
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                            Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.


title: Case C-258/02 P: Appeal brought on 12 July 2002 by Bactria Industriehygiene-Service GmbH against the order made on 29 April 2002 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-339/00 between Bactria Industriehygiene-Service GmbH and Commission of the European Communities

text:
28.9.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 233/13
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, dated 27 June 2002, which            Industriehygiene-Service GmbH, established in Kirchheimbo-
was received at the Court Registry on 11 July 2002, for a               landen (Germany), represented by Koen Van Maldegem and
preliminary ruling in the case of Halifax plc, Leeds Permanent          Claudio Mereu, lawyers.
Development Services Ltd, County Wide Property Investments
Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the
following questions:
                                                                        The Appellant claims that the Court should:
1.    (a)  In the relevant circumstances, do transactions:
                                                                        —      declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;
           (i)   effected by each participator with the intention
                 solely of obtaining a tax advantage and                —      annul the Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 April
                                                                               2002 in case T-339/00;
           (ii)  which have no independent business purpose
                                                                        —      declare that the Appellant has standing to bring proceed-
                                                                               ings under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC for the
           qualify for VAT purposes as supplies made by or to                  annulment of Regulation 1896/2000/EC ( 2);
           the participators in the course of their economic
           activities?
                                                                        —      remand the case to the Court of First Instance to rule on
                                                                               the merits;
      (b) In the relevant circumstances, what factors should
           be considered in determining the identity of the
                                                                        —      order the European Commission to bear all costs and
           recipients of the supplies made by the arm’s-length
           builders?                                                           expenses of both proceedings.
2.    Does the doctrine of abuse of rights as developed by the
      Court operate to disallow the Appellants their claims for
      recovery of or relief for input tax arising from the              Pleas in law and main arguments
      implementation of the relevant transactions?
                                                                        The Appellant submits that the contested order should be
                                                                        annulled bacause it was decided on the basis of an overly
                                                                        restrictive interpretation of Article 230 EC which, the Appel-
                                                                        lant maintains, no longer applies as a result of the new test for
                                                                        standing introduced by the Court of First Instance in its recent
                                                                        judgment in case T-177/01, Jégo-Quéré et Cia SA v. European
                                                                        Commission. In the Appellant’s view, his action is clearly
                                                                        admissible under this new test inasmuch as the contested
Appeal brought on 12 July 2002 by Bactria Industriehy-                  Regulation restricts his data protection and property rights in
giene-Service GmbH against the order made on 29 April                   a manner that is both definite and immediate and the Appellant
2002 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First                        has no recourse to another judicial body to protect his rights.
Instance of the European Communities in case T-339/
00 (1) between Bactria Industriehygiene-Service GmbH
      and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        Furthermore, the Appellant submits that, even if the new test
                                                                        is not applied, the legal assessment made by the Court of First
                                                                        Instance in concluding that the Appellant was not individually
                        (Case C-258/02 P)                               concerned by the contested Regulation is contradictory, insuf-
                                                                        ficiently motivated, based on an erroneous interpretation and
                                                                        application of the relevant legal framework and inconsistent
                         (2002/C 233/21)                                with the predominant case-law on individual concern.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 4, 6.1.2001, p. 9.
                                                                        (2 ) of the Commission of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the
An appeal against the order made on 29 April 2002 by the                     programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                         the European Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products
                                                                             (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 228, 8.9.2000, p. 6).
European Communities in case T-339/00 between Bactria
Industriehygiene-Service GmbH and Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 12 July 2002 by Bactria


title: Action brought on 26 June 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-218/96)

text:
No C 269/4                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           14 . 9 . 96
The period prescribed for the transposition of the Directive              for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4 rue des
in question into national law expired on 31 March 1994 ,                  Girondins .
but the Hellenic Republic has not yet adopted the measures
necessary to incorporate it fully into the Greek legal system,            The applicant claims that the Court should :
nor notified the Commission of any such measures .
                                                                          — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 822/96 of
(') OJ No L 179 , 22 . 7 . 1993 , p . 5 .                                        3 May 1996 on the exceptional allocation of a quantity
( 2 ) Official Journal , English Special Edition 1970 ( III ), p. 840 .          additional to the tariff quota for imports of bananas
                                                                                during the second quarter of 1996 as a result of tropical
                                                                                storms Iris , Luis and Marilyn ('),
                                                                          — order the Commission to pay the costs .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
Administratif, Saint-Denis de la Reunion, by judgment of                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
that court of 5 June 1996 in the case of Paul
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
     Chevassus-Marche v. Conseil Regional de la Reunion                   in Case C-407/95 ( 2 ).
                           ( Case C-212/96 )
                              ( 96/C 269/08 )                             (') OJ No L 111 , 4 . 5 . 1996 , p . 7 .
                                                                          ( 2 ) OJ No C 46 , 17 . 2 . 1996 , p . 11 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal
Administratif ( Administrative Court ), Saint-Denis de la
Reunion , of 5 June 1996 , which was received at the Court
Registry on 25 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Paul Chevassus-Marche against Conseil Regional de
                                                                          Action brought on 26 June 1996 by the Commission of the
la Reunion on the following questions :
                                                                           European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                                Case C-218/96 )
 1 . Is Council Decision 8 9/6 8 8/EEC ( 1 ) authorizing the                                           ( 96/C 269/ 10 )
       maintenance of dock dues payable on imported
       products and on goods produced by undertakings                     An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
       located in an overseas departement consistent with the
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
       Treaty and , specifically, with Articles 9 , 12 and 13             26 June 1996 by the Commission of the European
       thereof, in that it allows the possibility of exemptions for
                                                                          Communities , represented by Gotz zur Hausen, acting as
       local undertakings on the sole condition that they
                                                                          Agent, assisted by J. -J. Evrard, Avocat, with an address for
       contribute to the promotion or maintenance of an                   service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
       economic activity ?
                                                                          Cruz, of the Commission 's Legal Service , Wagner Centre ,
2 . If so , may Decision 89/688/EEC be regarded , in the light            Kirchberg.
       of the second paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty of
       Rome , as permitting fiscal differentiation with a view to         The applicant claims that the Court should :
       achieving economic objectives which are consistent with
       the requirements of the Treaty and of secondary                    — declare that, by not adopting the laws , regulations and
       legislation, where such differentiation is justified by the               administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       particular economic conditions in the overseas                            Commission Directive 93/ 105/EC (') of 25 November
       departements ?                                                            1 993 laying down Annex VII D , containing information
                                                                                required for the technical dossier referred to in Article 12
                                                                                of the     seventh    amendment       of Council     Directive
 (') OJ No L 399 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 46 .
                                                                                67/548/EEC (2 ), or by not communicating those
                                                                                measures, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under that Directive ,
                                                                          — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
 Action brought on 26 June 1 996 by the Kingdom of Belgium
     against the Commission of the European Communities                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                            ( Case C-2 17/96 )
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
                               ( 96/C 269/09 )                             in Case C-205/96 ( 3 ); the period prescribed by the Directive
                                                                           expired on 31 December 1993 .
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                (') OJ No L 294 , 30 . 11 . 1993 , p . 21 .
 European Communities on 26 June 1996 by the Kingdom of                    ( 2 ) Official Journal , English Special Edition 1967, p. 234 .
 Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Adviseur-Generaal in                 (') OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 , p . 7 .
 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs , External Trade and
 Development Cooperation , acting as Agent, with an address


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European CommunitiesOJ C 191, 10.8.2002

text:
C 202/40        EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                         24.8.2002
                                                           III
                                                         (Notices)
                                                   (2002/C 202/70)
            Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Communities
         OJ C 191, 10.8.2002
         Past publications
         OJ C 180, 27.7.2002
         OJ C 169, 13.7.2002
         OJ C 156, 29.6.2002
         OJ C 144, 15.6.2002
         OJ C 131, 1.6.2002
         OJ C 118, 18.5.2002
                                              These texts are available on:
                                         EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                           CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case T-584/11: Action brought on 15 November 2011 — Atlas Transport v OHIM — Hartmann (ATLAS TRANSPORT)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/27

         Action brought on 15 November 2011 — Atlas Transport v OHIM — Hartmann (ATLAS TRANSPORT)
   (Case T-584/11)
   2012/C 32/57
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Atlas Transport GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt, K. Schmidt-Hern and B. Weichhaus, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alfred Hartmann (Leer, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 September 2011 in Case R 2262/2010-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: word mark ‘ATLAS TRANSPORT’ for goods in Class 39.

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant.

      Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: Alfred Hartmann.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: rejection of the application for revocation.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal upheld.

      Pleas in law: infringement of Rule 40(5), in conjunction with Rule 22, of Implementing Regulation No 2868/95 due to an erroneous assessment of the evidence; infringement of Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009, since, in its literal interpretation, the defendant addressed the issue alone as to whether there had been a legitimate use of the mark for the corresponding services; infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009, since, in determining the meaning of the term ‘transport’, the defendant referred merely to one source and thus evaluated that term without due care and insufficiently; infringement of Article 75, sentence 1, of Regulation No 207/2009, since the defendant failed to clearly reason its legal opinion; infringement of Article 75, sentence 2, and Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 as a result of a breach of the right to be heard.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2004 in Case T-198/01: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Action for annulment — Private creditor test — Aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty — Rights of the defence — Statement of reasons)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 July 2004
   in Case T-198/01: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Action for annulment - Private creditor test - Aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty - Rights of the defence - Statement of reasons)
   (2004/C 239/30)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-198/01: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH, established in Ilmenau (Germany), represented initially by S. Gerrit and C. Arhold and subsequently by C. Arhold and N. Wimmer, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Bucci, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by Schott Glas, established in Mainz (Germany), represented by U. Soltész, lawyer — application for annulment of Commission Decision 2002/185/CE of 12 June 2001 on State aid implemented by Germany for Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (Germany) (OJ 2002 L 62, p. 30) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh, J.D. Cooke, H. Legal and M.E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 July 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission and by the intervener in the main action and the interlocutory proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.


title: Case T-154/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Jaber v Council

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/22

         Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Jaber v Council
   (Case T-154/15)
   (2015/C 190/26)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Aiman Jaber (Lattakia, Syria) (represented by: A. Boesch, D. Amaudruz and M. Ponsard, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Order the production of the file in Case T-653/11;

               —

               Reserve the applicant the right to reply and, on this occasion, to produce new documents and to call witnesses;

               —

               Annul, in so far as these measures concern the applicant:

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/108 of 26 January 2015;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) No 2015/117 of 26 January 2015;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-653/11 Jaber v Council
       (1).

      (1)  OJ 2012, C 58, p. 12.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Royal Court of Jersey, by order of that court of 11 April 1996, in the case of Rui Alberto Pereira Roque against His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor of Jersey (Case C-171/96)

text:
No C 197/ 14             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6 . 7. 96
2. If not, what are the consequences of invalidity for the                      terminal operator) gives rise to arrangements in the
      charging of customs duty in early May 1992 on wines                       market whereby users may have contractual
      originating in Serbia which were imported in the period                   relationships only with the terminal operator for the
      from mid-November 1991 to April 1992 and cleared for                      whole range of services which they need when visiting a
      warehousing in a customs warehouse ?                                      port in which the terminal operator or operators hold a
                                                                                dominant position in the market within the meaning of
      Are the quota-related preferential customs duties                         Article 86 of the Treaty ?
      granted in 1992 for wines from the territory of the
      former Yugoslavia other than Serbia applicable in that              3 . Do Articles 59 and 90 of the EC Treaty, in conjunction
      respect ?                                                                 with Article 86, in any event preclude national
                                                                                legislation which only allows an undertaking operating
                                                                                in a port to provide to other undertaking operating in
( ] ) OJ No L 315 , 15 . 11 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                                                the port, and in particular terminal operators, services
                                                                                limited to the mere supply of labour ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
Circondariale di la Spezia by order of that court of 12 April             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato
1996 in the criminal proceedings pending before it against                by order of that court of 9 January 1996 in the case of
                      Silvano Raso and Others                                          Regione Piemonte v. Sai Agricola SpA
                           ( Case C-163/96 )                                                         (Case C-164/96)
                             ( 96/C 197/27 )                                                           ( 96/C 197/28 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Pretura                           European Communities by an order of the Consiglio di
Circondariale di la Spezia ( Magistrates' Court for the                   Stato ( Council of State ), of 9 January 1996, which was
District of La Spezia ) of 12 April 1996 , which was received             received at the Court Registry on 13 May 1996, for a
at the Court Registry on 13 May 1996, for a preliminary                   preliminary ruling in the case of Regione Piemonte v. Sai
ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court              Agricola SpA on the following question:
against Silvano Raso and Others on the following
questions :                                                               Whether, under Council Directive 72/159/EEC ( 1 ) and the
                                                                          subsequent Council Regulation No 797/85 (2 ) and having
1 . Does Article 5 9 of the Treaty preclude Italian legislation           regard to the aim of developing a common agricultural
      which prohibits an undertaking holding a port terminal              policy within a system free of discrimination between
      concession from having recourse to work done by other               farmers, there is room for the national or regional legislator
      undertakings — not set up by former port companies                  to provide for different treatment of individual farmers,
      and groups — comprising the supply of services of the               even if only in relation to the introduction of a special system
      kind provided for users including those belonging to                of identification based on a specific register set up solely for
      other Member States, with the further implication that,             that purpose ?
      as a result of the Italian legislation, the terminal operator
      itself is required to make available the whole range of             (*) OJ No English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 324 .
      services that might be required by users in the port                ( 2 ) OJ No L 93 , 30 . 3 . 1985 , p. 1 .
      terminal, giving rise to the risk of hampering access to
      the market for the provision of individual services by
      undertakings authorized to operate in the port other
      than those referred to by Article 21 ( 1 ) ( b) of Law
      No 84/94 ?
2. Does Article 90 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with
      Article 86 , preclude national legislation which (by                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Royal Court of
      reason of its effects on the market, namely, first, the fact        Jersey, by order of that court of 1 1 April 1996, in the case of
      that it prevents undertakings other than the terminal —             Rui Alberto Pereira Roque against His Excellency the
      not set up by former port companies and groups — from                                Lieutenant Governor of Jersey
      providing services within the confines of the port for                                         (Case C-171/96)
      would-be users; secondly, the fact that the terminal                                             ( 96/C 197/29 )
      operator is obliged to provide all port operations and
      services required at the terminal; and, thirdly, the fact
      that it is impossible for users to entrust certain services         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      to undertakings of their oWn choice other than the                  European Communities by an order of the Royal Court of
 ---pagebreak--- 6 . 7. 96          LEN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 197/ 15
Jersey of 11 April 1996 , which was received at the Court              2 . If there has been a supply of goods or services effected
Registry on 20 May 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the                   for   consideration,      what    is  the    nature    of the
case of Rui Alberto Pereira Roque against His Excellency the               consideration in relation to such transaction ?
Lieutenant Governor of Jersey, on the following
questions:                                                             P ) OJ No L 145, 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ; EE 09 FI , p . 54 .
1 . On the premise that British citizens are not liable to
     immigration control in, or to be deported from, Jersey,
     does Article 4 of the third Protocol to the Act of
     Accession of the United Kingdom to the European
     Communities ( l ) have the effect that nationals of
     another Member State are equally not liable to be                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sala de lo Social of
     deported from Jersey ?                                            the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla la Mancha by
                                                                       order of that court of 25 April 1996 in the case of Francisca
2 . If the answer to the first question is 'No', does the said         Sanchez Hidalgo and Others against Asociacion de Servicios
     Article 4 prohibit the competent authorities in Jersey                      Aser and Sociedad Cooperativa Minerva
     from deporting a national of another Member State save                                    ( Case C-1 73/96 )
     where such deportation is justified on grounds of public                                    ( 96/C 197/31 )
     policy, public security or public health ?
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
3 . If the answer to the second question is 'Yes', does the            European Communities by an order of the Sala de lo Social
     said Article 4 prohibit the competent authorities of              del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla la Mancha
     Jersey from deporting a national of another Member                ( Social Chamber of the High Court of Justice, Castilla la
     State from Jersey where the considerations of public              Mancha ), received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1996 ,
     policy applied by those authorities would not in practice         for a preliminary ruling in the case of Francisca Sanchez
     lead to the deportation of that person from the United            Hidalgo and Others against Asociacion de Servicios Aser
     Kingdom ?                                                         and Sociedad Cooperativa Minerva Ayuntamiento, on the
                                                                       following question:
0 ) OJ, English Special Edition, 27. 3 . 1972, p. 164.
                                                                       Must there be regarded as falling within the scope of
                                                                       Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 ( ! ) the case of an
                                                                       undertaking which ceases to provide, for a municipality
                                                                       which had awarded it a contract for that purpose, the service
                                                                       of home help for certain persons in need, whereupon a new
                                                                       contract for that service is awarded to a different
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                undertaking, without there being any transfer of material
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of             assets and without there being, either in the collective
 13 May 1996, in the case of the Commissioners of Customs              agreement or in the tendering conditions, any provision
   and Excise against the First National Bank of Chicago               pursuant to which the new undertaking must be subrogated
                        Case C- 1 72/96 )
                                                                       to the employment relationship between the workers and
                                                                       the previous undertaking to which the contract had been
                          96/C 197/30                                  awarded ?
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                (M OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 ; EE 05 F2 , p . 122 .
 European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 13 May 1996 , which
 was received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1996 , for a
 preliminary ruling in the case of the Commissioners of
 Customs and Excise against the First National Bank of
 Chicago, on the following questions :
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
                                                                        Première Instance de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of
 On the proper interpretation of Council Directive                      23 April 1996 in the case ofJyri Lehtonen and ASBL Castors
 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the                  Canada Dry Namur-Braine v. ASBL Fédération royale belge
 laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                                   des sociétés de basket-ball
 common system of value-added tax: uniform basis of                                             (Case C-1 76/96 )
 assessment ^), and in relation to transactions of foreign
 exchange as defined by the British Bankers' Association ( as                                     ( 96/C 197/32 )
 set out in paragraph 1 of the findings of fact):
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 1 . Do such foreign exchange transactions constitute                   European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
      the supply of goods or services effected for                      Première Instance de Bruxelles ( Court of First Instance,
      consideration ?                                                   Brussels ) of 23 April 1996 , which was received at the Court


title: Order of the Court of 11 May 1999 in Case C-325/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Grande Instance de Lille): Philippe Anssens v Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Nord (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissible)

text:
C 246/8                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.8.1999
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                    by Gilles Bouneou, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address
                                                                           for service in Luxembourg at the latter’s Chambers, 4 Rue de
                           of 11 May 1999                                  l’Avenir — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                           Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 28
                                                                           May 1998 in Joined Cases T-78/96 and T-170/96 W v
in Case C-325/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-239 and II-745, seeking to
the Tribunal Grande Instance de Lille): Philippe Anssens                   have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
         v Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Nord (1)                      being the Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                           Julian Currall, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck) — the Court
     (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissible)                   (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President
                                                                           of the Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-
                           (1999/C 246/14)                                 Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                           made an order on 10 June 1999, the operative part of which
                                                                           is as follows:
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           1. The appeal is dismissed.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                         2. W is to pay the costs.
In Case C-325/98: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
(ex Article 177) from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Lille               (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
(France), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Philippe Anssens and Directeur des
Services Fiscaux du Nord — on the interpretation of Article
95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC) —
the Court composed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presi-
dents of Chambers, G.F. Mancini, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm,
L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cosmas,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 11
May 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:                       Appeal brought on 23 April 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities against the judgment deliver-
                                                                           ed on 25 February 1999 by the Fourth Chamber of the
The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande         Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Instance de Lille, by judgment of 7 August 1998, is inadmissible.          Joined Cases T-282/97 and T-57/98 between Antonio
                                                                           Giannini and the Commission of the European Communi-
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.                                                                               ties
                                                                                (Case C-153/99 P)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/16)
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                    An appeal against the judgment delivered on 25 February
                                                                           1999 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                           (First Chamber)                                 the European Communities in Joined Cases T-282/97 and
                                                                           T-57/98 between Antonio Giannini and the Commission of
                           of 10 June 1999                                 the European Communities was brought before the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities on 23 April 1999 by the
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities, represented by
in Case C-304/98 P: W v Commission of the European                         Gianluigi Valsesia, Principal Legal Adviser, and Julian Currall,
                           Communities (1)                                 Legal Adviser, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck, of the Brussels
                                                                           Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
(Officials — Reassignment — Interests of the service —                     Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Administrative fault — Liability of the institution —
        Manifestly inadmissible and unfounded appeal)
                                                                           The appellant claims that the Court should:
                           (1999/C 246/15)
                                                                           — declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           — consequently, annul the contested judgment (1); and
In Case C-304/98 P: W, an official of the Commission of the
European Communities, residing in Luxembourg, represented                  — order the respondent to the appeal to pay the costs.