title: Case C-244/99 P: Appeal brought on 28 June 1999 by (1) DSM N.V. and (2) DSM Kunststoffen B.V. against the judgment delivered on 20 April 1999 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94, T-314/94, T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94, T-329/94 and T-335/94 between (1) DSM N.V. and (2) DSM Kunststoffen B.V., Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV, Elf Atochem SA, BASF AG, Shell International Chemical Company Ltd, Wacker-Chemie GmbH, Hoechst AG, Société Artésienne de Vinyle, Montedison SpA, Imperial Chemical Industries plc, Hüls AG and Enichem SpA, and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.12.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 352/11
        undertakings, on which they wished, and should have                   forms a necessary part of any procedure that may result in
        been allowed, to express their views prior to the                     an act imposing a penalty. The possibility of subsequent
        adoption of the decision of 27 July 1994. It is also                  compensation renders that right of the defence largely
        incorrect to say, as stated in paragraph 252 of the                   illusory.
        contested judgment, that the 1994 decision contains
        no point of any substance which does not appear in               — Limitation: the absence of any reference, in the list
        the 1988 decision.                                                    contained in Article 2(1) of Regulation No 2988/74, to a
                                                                              decision imposing a fine is not a master of chance or an
        Consequently, the correct procedure in a situation such               inadvertent omission; it fits precisely into the system of
        as that preceding the adoption of the 1994 decision,                  Regulation No 2988/74 and reflects, as such, the express
        as laid down in the case-law of the Court of Justice, is              intentions of the Community legislature. If the proceedings
        to start the procedure afresh ‘in accordance with the                 brought by the undertakings, including the appellant,
        rules on competence and procedure’, inter alia by                     against the decision of 21 December 1988 did not have
        ‘calling upon the parties concerned to submit their                   the effect of stopping time from running in respect of the
        observations’, and thereafter to ‘take all relevant factors           Commission’s right to pursue the matter, that means that,
        into consideration, including, in the present case, the               following the last of the measures referred to in Article 2(1)
        facts already examined in an earlier decision’.                       of Regulation No 2988/74, namely the communication
                                                                              of the statement of objections on 5 April 1988, the
   — Consultation of the Advisory Committee: the Court of                     interruption of the limitation period terminated on 5 April
        First Instance erred in finding that, prior to the                    1993. That period was not suspended; consequently, the
        adoption of the decision of 27 July 1994, there existed               Commission was no longer empowered on 27 July 1994
        no obligation to reconsult the Advisory Committee.                    to adopt a decision imposing (once again) a fine. In the
        The basis of the obligation to consuls the Advisory                   light of that interpretation of Articles 1 to 3 of Regulation
        Committee is to be found in Article 10 of Council                     No 2988/74, which is in conformity with the scheme of
        Regulation No 17, together with Articles 87 to 89 of                  the legislation, the Court of First Instance has given reasons
        the Treaty (in particular Article 89 thereof). That                   which are not only unjust but, in fact, incomprehensible.
        obligation must be construed in the light of those
        higher-ranking rules and not, as the Court of First              (1) Case C-137/92 P, (1994) ECR I-2555.
        Instance states, in the light of a lower-ranking act,            (2) Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 17 Decemb-
        namely Commission Regulation No 99/63.                               er 1996, No 43/1994/490/572, para. 74.
— Inadequate reasoning
— Protection against self-incrimination: the Court of First
   Instance erred in ruling that the ‘recognition’ of an absolute
   right of silence, as argued for by the appellant, would go
   beyond what is necessary to preserve the rights of the                Appeal brought on 28 June 1999 by (1) DSM N.V. and (2)
   defence and would constitute a hindrance to the Com-                  DSM Kunststoffen B.V. against the judgment delivered on
   mission in the accomplishment of its task. According to               20 April 1999 by the Third Chamber, Extended Compo-
   the rules laid down in Article 6 of the ECHR, as interpreted          sition, of the Court of First Instance of the European
   by the European Court of Human Rights in the Saunders                 Communities in Joined Cases T-305/94, T-306/94,
   judgment (2), it is not possible to infer from the (public)           T-307/94, T-313/94, T-314/94, T-315/94, T-316/94,
   interest in having investigations carried out any justifi-            T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94, T-329/94 and T-335/94
   cation for a restriction of the right of silence. Equally             between (1) DSM N.V. and (2) DSM Kunststoffen B.V.,
   irrelevant, and contrary to the case-law of the Court of              Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV, Elf Atochem SA,
   Justice (and of the European Court of Human Rights), is               BASF AG, Shell International Chemical Company Ltd,
   the further reasoning contained in paragraph 448 of the               Wacker-Chemie GmbH, Hoechst AG, Société Artésienne
   contested judgment, to the effect that undertakings have              de Vinyle, Montedison SpA, Imperial Chemical Industries
   every opportunity to put their point of view concerning               plc, Hüls AG and Enichem SpA, and the Commission of
   the documents which, contrary to that principle, they have                               the European Communities
   been called upon to produce and/or the replies which,
   likewise contrary to that principle, they have been required
   to give. In such circumstances, the harm against which                                         (Case C-244/99 P)
   that principle is designed to protect has already been
   suffered.                                                                                (1999/C 352/20)
— Access to the file: Article 6 of the ECHR guarantees the               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 20 April 1999
   ‘suspect’ a right of ‘equal access’ to the file. That guarantee       by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
   of the rights of the defence, ensuring access on an equal             First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
   footing, can only have any meaning if the finding that the            T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94, T-314/94,
   Commission did not provide complete access to the file                T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94,
   results, on its own, in annulment. To impose in that                  T-329/94 and T-335/94 between (1) DSM N.V. and (2) DSM
   connection the additional requirement that the failure to             Kunststoffen B.V., Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV, Elf
   provide access may also be shown to have affected the                 Atochem SA, BASF AG, Shell International Chemical Company
   conduct of the procedure and the content of the decision,             Ltd, Wacker-Chemie GmbH, Hoechst AG, Société Artésienne
   to the detriment of the appellant, amounts to robbing of              de Vinyle, Montedison SpA, Imperial Chemical Industries plc,
   its full effect the respect for the rights of the defence which       Hüls AG and Enichem SpA, and the Commission of the
 ---pagebreak--- C 352/12                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.12.1999
European Communities was brought before the Court of                     Appeal brought on 1 July 1999 by Montedison SpA
Justice of the European Communities on 28 June 1999 by (1)               against the judgment delivered on 20 April 1999 by the
DSM N.V. and (2) DSM Kunststoffen B.V., represented by                   Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
I.G.F. Cath, Advocaat with a right of audience before the                First Instance of the European Communities in Case
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, with an address for service in                T-325/94 (Joined Cases T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94,
Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Dupong, 4-6 Rue de la                   T-313/94, T-314/94, T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94,
Boucherie.                                                               T-325/94, T-328/94, T-329/94 and T-335/94) between
                                                                         LVM NV, Elf Atochem SA, BASF AG, Shell International
                                                                         Chemical Company Ltd, DSM NV and DSM Kunststoffen
The appellants claim that the Court should:                              BV, Wacker-Chemie GmbH, Hoechst AG, S.A.V., Montedi-
                                                                         son SpA, I.C.I. plc, Hüls AG and Enichem SpA and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
1. set aside, either wholly or in part, the judgment delivered
     by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                 (Case C-245/99 P)
     on 20 April 1999 against which the present appeal has
     been brought, and terminate the proceedings,                                                (1999/C 352/21)
                                                                         An appeal against the Judgment delivered on 20 April 1999
2. alternatively: set aside the contested judgment, either wholly        by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
     or in part, and refer the case back to the Court of First           First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-325/94
     Instance in order for the proceedings to be resumed;                (Joined Cases T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94,
                                                                         T-314/94, T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94,
                                                                         T-328/94, T-329/94 and T-335/94) between LVM NV, Elf
3. annul, alternatively declare void, either wholly or in part,          Atochem SA, BASF AG, Shell International Chemical Company
     the contested decision of the Commission of 27 July 1994;           Ltd, DSM NV and DSM Kunststoffen BV, Wacker-Chemie
                                                                         GmbH, Hoechst AG, S.A.V., Montedison SpA, I.C.I. plc, Hüls
                                                                         AG and Enichem SpA and the Commission of the European
4. annul, alternatively reduce, the fine imposed on the                  Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
     appellant by the Commission’s decision of 27 July 1994;             European Communities on 1 July 1999 by Montedison SpA, a
                                                                         company whose registered office is in Milan (Italy), represented
                                                                         by Giuseppe Celona, of the Milan Bar, and Piero A.M. Ferrari,
5. adopt such further measures as the Court may think fit;               of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                         the Chambers of George Margue, 20 Rue Philippe II, L-2340
                                                                         Luxembourg.
6. order the Commission, as the party at fault, to pay the
     costs of both sets of proceedings.                                  The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         Organisation:
                                                                         — assign the case to the Court of Justice sitting in plenary
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              session;
— Inviolability of the home: in accordance with the Niemietz             Jurisdiction:
     judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (1), the             — declare all the actions admissible;
     exercise by the Commission of its powers in the context
     of investigations within the meaning of Article 14 of               Legality:
     Regulation No 17 is subject to the guarantees provided in
     that connection by Article 8 of the European Convention             — annul the contested decision on the grounds of:
     on Human Rights and the interpretation thereof by the
     European Court of Human Rights, which differs from that                 — complete lack of the power exercised;
     of the Court of Justice (2).                                            — and/or absence of the procedure laid down for the
                                                                                exercise of such power;
— The first to sixth pleas and the eighth to eleventh pleas are              — and/or lapse of the right;
     the same as those advanced in Case C-238/99 P.
                                                                             — and/or any of the other grounds set out in the
                                                                                application;
                                                                         Substance:
(1) Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 16 December
    1992 in Niemietz v Germany, Series A, No 251-B.                      — return the case file to the Court of First Instance so that it
(2) Judgment of 21.9.1989 in Joined Cases 46/87 and 227/88, (1989)           may consider the pleas raised by the applicant at first
    ECR 2859.                                                                instance but not considered by the Court, evaluate the
                                                                             documentary evidence not considered by the Court, allow
                                                                             the witness evidence submitted but rejected, cancel the fine
                                                                             imposed or reduce it to such amount as is proportional to
                                                                             the duration and seriousness of the matters for which
                                                                             Montedison was held liable;


title: Case C-548/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 October 2015 — J.J. de Lange v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 October 2015 — J.J. de Lange v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-548/15)
   (2016/C 038/31)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: J.J. de Lange

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 3 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation be interpreted as meaning that that provision applies to a concession contained in tax legislation on the basis of which study costs may, under certain conditions, be deducted from the taxable income?

         In the event that the Court answers the first question referred in the negative:

               2.

               Must the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of age, as a general principle of EU law, be applied to a tax concession on the basis of which training expenditure is only deductible under certain circumstances, even when that concession falls outside the material scope of Directive 2000/78/EC and when that arrangement does not implement EU law?

         If the answer to the first or the second question referred is in the affirmative:

               3.

                           (a)

                           Can differences in treatment which are contrary to the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of age as a general principle of EU law be justified in a way provided for in Article 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC?

                           (b)

                           If not, what criteria apply to the application of that principle or to the justification of a distinction based on age?

               4.

                           (a)

                           Should Article 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC and/or the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of age be interpreted as justifying a difference in treatment on the grounds of age if the ground for that difference in treatment only relates to some of the cases affected by that distinction?

                           (b)

                           Can a distinction based on age be justified by the view of the legislator that beyond a certain age a tax concession need not be available because it is the ‘personal responsibility’ of the person claiming it to achieve the objective pursued by the concession?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Case T-83/99: Action brought on 13 April 1999 by Carlo Ripa di Meana against the European Parliament

text:
C 160/30               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.6.1999
Action brought on 12 April 1999 by Lily Karoline                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Schuerer against the Commission of the European Com-
                             munities
                                                                          — annul, pursuant to article 173 of the EC Treaty, after
                          (Case T-81/99)                                       holding, pursuant to article 184 of the EC Treaty, that the
                                                                               period of six months laid down in article 3 (1) of Annex
                                                                               III to the ‘Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and
                         (1999/C 160/54)                                       Allowances to Members’ is inapplicable, the decision of
                                                                               the Council of quaestors of 4 February 1999, reference No
                                                                               300762, rejecting Mr Ripa di Meana’s request for the
                   (Language of the case: French)                              provisional pension scheme referred to in the said Annex
                                                                               to apply with retroactive effect as from the beginning of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      the current parliamentary term,
ties was brought before the Court of the First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 April 1999 by Lily Karoline
Schuerer, of Munich, represented by Hermann J. Winzen,                    — order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
Rechtsanwalt, Munich, with an address for service in Luxem-                    proceedings.
bourg at the Chambers of Messrs Decker and Associates, 18,
avenue Marie-Thérèse.
The applicant claims that the Court should order the defendant
to pay DEM 17 677,57 together with interest; and order the                Pleas in law and main arguments
defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          The applicant, an Italian Member of the European Parliament
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           since July 1994,contests the Decision by which the College of
                                                                          quaestors rejected his request for application of the provisional
The applicant, a former Commission official, states that,                 pension scheme laid down in Annex III to the Rules Governing
following the change of German capital which took place on                the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members.
3 October 1990, she applied for alteration of the weightings
used in calculation of her pension. She considers that she has
been adversely affected by the fact that the compensatory
                                                                          In that connection, it should be observed that, pending the
measures which, by reason of the circumstances, became
                                                                          introduction of a definitive Community pension scheme for
necessary for the first time at the end of 1990 were not
                                                                          all Members of the Parliament, on 4 November 1981 and
adopted. Provision was made for compensation to be paid up
                                                                          24-25 May 1982, the Bureau introduced and laid down rules
until the end of the year in respect of changes occurring during
                                                                          governing the abovementioned pension scheme for Members
the course of the year; however, that compensation has not
                                                                          from those countries whose national authorities do not provide
been paid to date. It is only since July 1994 that the applicant’s
                                                                          a pension scheme for Members of the European Parliament.
pension has been properly calculated and paid. Consequently,
                                                                          The scheme is administered by the European Parliament on
the applicant has suffered a net loss amounting to DEM
                                                                          behalf of the Governments of certain specified countries.
17 677,57 as a result of the incorrect calculation of her
pension from October 1990 to June 1994 (45 months).
                                                                          Given the alignment of the pension scheme in question with
                                                                          that provided for members of the Italian Parliament, the
                                                                          applicant was convinced that he had been automatically
                                                                          affiliated to the provisional scheme as from the date on which
                                                                          he took office and that the appropriate contributions had
                                                                          automatically been deducted from his allowances. However, in
Action brought on 13 April 1999 by Carlo Ripa di Meana                    1998 be became aware that in fact he enjoyed no pension
               against the European Parliament                            protection because he had not formally joined the scheme
                                                                          within the period of six months from the entry into force of
                          (Case T-83/99)                                  the new article 3 (1) of Annex III, as amended by decision of
                                                                          the Bureau of 13 September 1995. The reason stated for the
                         (1999/C 160/55)                                  contested decision of rejection was based specifically on failure
                                                                          to comply with the said time-limit.
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:
An action against the Commission of the European Parliament
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 13 April 1999 by Carlo Ripa di Meana,                      — misuse of powers in that, since it referred to the Italian
represented by Wilma Viscardini Donà, assisted by Gabriela                     Rules, Annex III should have provided for automatic
Donà, both of the Padua Bar, with an address for service in                    affiliation to the provisional scheme and, in any event,
Luxembourg at the offices of Ernest Arendt,8-10, rue Mathias                   could not have made the application of the scheme subject
Hardt.                                                                         to a time-limit,
 ---pagebreak--- 5.6.1999              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 160/31
— breach of legitimate expectations and the principles of                 Action brought on 13 April 1999 by Gastone Parigi
    legal certainty and of proper publication of measures in                             against the European Parliament
    that amendment of 13 September 1995 had not been
    brought to the notice of the Members concerned. In this
                                                                                (Case T-85/99)
    connection, the applicant also alleges infringement of
    article 27 (1) of the Rules Governing the Payment of
    Expense and Allowances to Members,                                                            (1999/C 160/57)
— breach of the principle of non-discrimination, as may be
    seen from a comparison between the applicant’s position                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
    and that of colleagues sitting in the national parliament or
    that of Italian Members who have taken their seats during
    the current parliamentary term.                                       An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                          13 April 1999 by Gastone Parigi, represented by Wilma
Lastly the applicant pleads breach of the requirement to state            Viscardini Donà, assisted by Gabriela Donà, both of the Padua
reasons, of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials          Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
and of the principle of proper administration.                            of Ernest Arendt,8-10, rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — annul, pursuant to article 173 of the EC Treaty, after
                                                                              holding, pursuant to article 184 of the EC Treaty, that the
                                                                              period of six months laid down in article 3 (1) of Annex
Action brought on 13 April 1999 by Leoluca Orlando                            III to the ‘Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and
               against the European Parliament                                Allowances to Members’ is inapplicable, the decision of
                                                                              the Council of quaestors of 4 February 1999, reference No
                                                                              300761, rejecting Mr Gastone Parigi’s request for the
                         (Case T-84/99)
                                                                              provisional pension scheme referred to in the said Annex
                                                                              to apply with retroactive effect as from the beginning of
                        (1999/C 160/56)                                       the current parliamentary term,
                                                                          — order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                            proceedings.
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                Pleas in law and main arguments
13 April 1999 by Leoluca Orlando represented by Wilma
Viscardini Donà, assisted by Gabriela Donà, both of the Padua
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
                                                                          raised in Case T-83/99 Ripa di Meana v. Parliament.
of Ernest Arendt, 8-10, rue Mathias Hardt.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul, pursuant to article 173 of the EC Treaty, after
    holding, pursuant to article 184 of the EC Treaty, that the
    period of six months laid down in article 3 (1) of Annex
    III to the ‘Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and
    Allowances to Members’ is inapplicable, the decision of               Action brought on 14 April 1999 by Vasilios Boukouvalas
    the Council of quaestors of 4 February 1999, reference No                            against the European Parliament
    300763, rejecting Mr Leoluca Orlando’s request for the
    provisional pension scheme referred to in the said Annex                                       (Case T-88/99)
    to apply with retroactive effect as from the beginning of
    the current parliamentary term,
                                                                                (1999/C 160/58)
— order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
    proceedings.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                 14 April 1999 by Vasilios Boukouvalas, an official of the
raised in Case T-83/99 Ripa di Meana v. Parliament.                       European Parliament, resident in Brussels, represented by
                                                                          Professor Kharis Tagaras, of the Thessaloniki Bar, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Véronique
                                                                          Duhaubois, 139, rue Schetzel, L-2518 Luxembourg.


title: Case C-431/03: Action brought on 30 September 2003 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 304/14                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                       13.12.2003
Action brought on 30 September 2003 by the Italian                            made by the Member State as final beneficiary subject to
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-                          the only requirement that the expenditure should be in
                             munities                                         fact incurred by the final beneficiary itself.
                                                                         (b) Inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons.
                          (Case C-431/03)
                                                                         (1) OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1.
                          (2003/C 304/20)                                (2) OJ 2000 L 193, p. 39.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 30 September 2003 by the Italian Republic
represented by Ivo Maria Braguglia, acting as Agent, and
Antonio Cingolo, Avvocato dello Stato.                                   Action brought on 10 October 2003 by Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against Portuguese Republic
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       (Case C-432/03)
—     order the joinder of the present case with the related                                      (2003/C 304/21)
      Cases C-138/03 and C-324/03; annul Memorandum
      No 26777a of the European Commissioner, Mr Barnier,
      of 29 July 2003 in so far as it excludes from financing
      the advances paid in relation to State aid granted by the
      Member States after 19 February 2003; annul all related            An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
      and preceding acts;                                                before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         10 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by António Caeiros, acting as
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      pay all the costs.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         1.   Declare that:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              —     by making tubes of polyethylene imported from
The applicant argues that the contested measure should be                           other Member States subject to an approval pro-
annulled on the following grounds:                                                  cedure, pursuant to Article 17 of Decree-Law No 38/
                                                                                382 of 7 August 1951, without taking account of
                                                                                approval certificates issued by those States,
(a)   infringement of Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/
      1999 (1) and of Rule 1(1) and (2) in the Annex to                             and
      Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1685/2000 (2).
                                                                              —     by omitting to inform the Commission of that
      The contested measure clearly infringed the abovemen-                         measure,
      tioned regulations.
      None of the provisions contained in the abovementioned                  the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      regulations states that the activities actually carried out             under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, and also under Articles 1
      and charged to financing are significant in terms of the                and 4(2) of Decision No 3052/95/EC of the European
      eligibility of the payment made by the final recipients of              Parliament and of the Council (1) of 13 December 1995
      the funding under State aid.                                            establishing a procedure for the exchange of information
                                                                              on national measures derogating from the principle of
                                                                              the free movement of goods within the Community;
      Rather on the contrary, the scheme laid down in those
      regulations, so far as concerns the State aid within the
      meaning of Article 87 EC, considers eligible payment               2.   Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 March 2003 in Case T-273/01: Innova Privat-Akademie GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — "BSS" — Article 51 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation No 40/94 — Distinctive character acquired through use — Articles 7(3) and 51(2) of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
24.5.2003               EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 124/19
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 5 March 2003
                         of 19 March 2003
                                                                              in Case T-273/01: Innova Privat-Akademie GmbH v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
in Joined Cases T-188/01, T-189/01 and T-190/01: Vassilios                    (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — ‘BSS’
Tsarnavas v Commission of the European Communities (1)                        — Article 51 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Absolute
                                                                              ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation No 40/
                                                                              94 — Distinctive character acquired through use — Articles
                                                                                7(3) and 51(2) of Regulation No 40/94)
(Officials — Admissibility — Promotion — Consideration
   of comparative merits of officials from different services)                                          (2003/C 124/33)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                           (2003/C 124/32)
                                                                              In Case T-273/01: Alcon Inc, formerly Alcon Universal Ltd,
                                                                              established in Hünenberg (Switzerland), represented by H.
                    (Language of the case: French)                            Porter, Solicitor and C. Morcom QC, with an address for
                                                                              service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities (Agents: M. de Pauw and B. Martenczuk: Action
                                                                              brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
                                                                              the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                              Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 13 July 2001 (Case R 273/
                                                                              2000-1), the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), compo-
In Joined Cases T-188/01, T-189/01 and T-190/01: Vassilios
                                                                              sed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and
Tsarnavas, an official of the Commission of the European
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by N. Lhoëst,                  A.W.H. Meij, Judges, Registrar: J. Plingers, Administrator, has
                                                                              given a judgment on 19 March 2003, in which it:
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: D. Martin)
— application for the annulment of the decisions of the                       1.     Dismisses the application;
Commission not to promote the applicant in the 1998,
1999 and 2000 promotions procedures — the Court of First                      2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
R.M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal, Judges; Blanca Pastor, Deputy                  (1 ) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.
Registrar, gave a judgment on 19 March 2003, in which it:
1.     Annuls the decisions of the Commission not to promote
       the applicant in the 1998, 1999 and 2000 promotions
       procedures;                                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 5 March 2003
2.     Dismisses as inadmissible the application in Case T-190/01;
                                                                              in Case T-293/01: Donatella Ineichein v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
3.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs in Cases T-188/01
       and T-189/01;
                                                                              (Temporary staff — Daily subsistence allowance — Place of
                                                                                recruitment — Evidence)
4.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs in Case T-190/01.
                                                                                (2003/C 124/34)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001 and C 303 of 27.10.2001.
                                                                              In Case T-293/01: Donatella Ineichein, member of the tempor-
                                                                              ary staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                              residing in Brussels, represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer, against


title: Case C-446/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France) lodged on 7 August 2013 — Société Fonderie 2A v Ministre de l'Économie et des Finances

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France) lodged on 7 August 2013 — Société Fonderie 2A v Ministre de l'Économie et des Finances
   (Case C-446/13)
   2013/C 304/12
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d'État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Société Fonderie 2A

      Respondent: Ministre de l'Économie et des Finances

      Question referred

   Do the provisions of the Sixth Directive [77/388/EEC] (1) for defining the place of an intra-Community supply mean that the supply of goods by a company to a customer in another country of the European Union, after the goods have, on the vendor’s behalf, undergone processing at the place of business of another company in the country of the customer is a supply between the country of the vendor and the country of the final recipient or a supply within the territory of the country of the final recipient, from the place of business of the processor?

      (1)  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).


title: References for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale, Rome (Castelnuovo di Porto Division) by orders of that court of 22 December 1994 in the cases of Città Convenienza Bergamo Srl v. (1) Mayor of the Municipality of Trezzano sul Naviglio and (2) Mayor of the Municipality of Turin (Cases C-145/95 and C-146/95)

text:
No C 174/6              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8 . 7 . 95
Circondariale ( District Magistrate 's Court ), Genova , of                   public holidays , but does not prohibit working in such
19 April 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                   shops on those days ( and imposes the penalties of forced
2 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Livia                    closure and withdrawal of their licences on shops in
Balestra v. Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale                       breach of that requirement ), constitute :
( INPS ) on the following questions :
( a ) Is it contrary to the abovementioned EEC Directives                     ( a ) a measure having an effect equivalent to a
      ( Articles 1 , 2, 3 , 4 and 5 of Council Directive                            restriction on imports within the meaning of
      79/7/EEC (') and Articles 1 , 2 and 5 of Council                              Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome and subsequent
      Directive 76/207/EEC ( 2 ) to establish different age                         rules of Community law adopted in pursuance of
      limits for the working lives of men and women for the                         the principles laid down therein; or
      purposes of entitlement to early retirement pursuant to
      Article 16 of Law No 155/81 , termination of the                        ( b ) a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised
      employment relationship and calculation of pension                            restriction on trade between Member States; or
      benefits in the event of early retirement ?
( b ) Does the different treatment, with respect to the                       ( c ) a measure which is disproportionate and
      employment relationship and social security benefits ,                        inappropriate to the socio-ethical aim pursued by
      which results from the establishment of different age                         the provision of national law; or
      limits under a legal system , such as the Italian system,
       under which the retirement age — the only age limit of                 ( d ) an infringement of Article 52 of the EC Treaty
       significance for the purposes of early retirement — is 60                    concerning freedom of establishment and of
      years of age for men and women alike, infringe the                            subsequent Community legislation enacted in
       abovementioned provisions of those Directives ?                              implementation of that principle; or
(') OJ No L 6 , 10 . 1 . 1979 , p . 24 .
(-) O J No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .                                    ( e ) at least an infringement of Article 2 ( 2 ) of Directive
                                                                                64/233/EEC (') concerning the attainment of
                                                                                freedom of establishment and freedom to provide
                                                                                services in respect of activities in wholesale trade;
                                                                                or
References for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura
Circondariale , Rome ( Castelnuovo di Porto Division ) by
orders of that court of 22 December 1994 in the cases of                      ( f) an infringement of Directives 83/ 189/EEC ( 2 ) and
Citta Convenienza Bergamo Sri v. ( 1 ) Mayor of the                                 88/ 182/EEC ( 3 ) concerning the elimination of
Municipality of Trezzano sul Naviglio and ( 2 ) Mayor of the                        technical barriers to trade between the Member
                      Municipality of Turin                                         States , in view of the fact that the prohibition on
                ( Cases C-145/95 and C-146/95 )
                                                                                Sunday opening of shops is a general prohibition in
                                                                                appearance only, but in fact is subject to
                            ( 95/C 174/ 10 )                                        exemptions for a series of products which are,
                                                                                except in a very few unavoidable instances,
References have been made to the Court of Justice of the                            exclusively of domestic origin ?
European Communities by orders of the Pretura
Circondariale ( District Magistrate 's Court ), Rome
 ( Castelnuovo di Porto Division ) of 22 December 1994 ,                2 . If the answer to the first question, in each of its parts , is
which were received at the Court Registry on 10 May 1995                      in the affirmative, does the national measure fall within
 ( Case C-145/95 ) and 1 1 May 1995 ( Case C-146/95 ), for a                  the derogations from Article 30 provided for in
preliminry ruling in the cases of Citta Convenienza Bergamo                   Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome, or within other
 Sri v. ( 1 ) Mayor of the Municipality of Trezzano sul                       derogations provided for by Community law ?
Naviglio and ( 2 ) Mayor of the Municipality of Turin on the
 following questions :
                                                                        ( l ) OJ No 56 , 4 . 4 . 1964 , p . 863 .
 1 . Does a provision of national law which ( save for certain          ( 2 ) OJ No L 109 , 26 . 4 . 1983 , p . 8 .
      products ) requires retail shops to close on Sundays and          ( ? ) OJ No L 81 , 26 . 3 . 1988 , p . 75 .


title: Case C-440/02: Action brought on 3 December 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
25.1.2003                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 19/25
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
By inspecting 14,1 % (in 1999) and 12,2 % (in 2000) of vessels               Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
which entered its ports, France has inspected an insufficient                directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
number of vessels entering its ports. Lack of staff cannot justify           each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
failure to fulfil obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 95/            required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
21/EC.                                                                       their transposition. That time-limit expired on 31 July 2001
                                                                             without the Italian Republic having brought into force the
                                                                             necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive
                                                                             referred to in the Commission’s application.
( 1) OJ Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the
     enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and
     sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States,
     of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention        (1 ) OJ 1999 L 201, p. 77.
     and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control)
     (OJ 1995 L 157, p. 1).
                                                                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État
                                                                             by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in the case of
                                                                             Caixa Bank France against Ministère de l’économie, des
Action brought on 3 December 2002 by the Commission                                               finances et de l’industrie
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-442/02)
                           (Case C-440/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/44)
                            (2003/C 19/43)
                                                                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             European Communities by order of the Conseil d’État of
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                6 November 2002, received at the Court Registry on 5 Decem-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 December                   ber 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Caixa Bank
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                          France against Ministère de l’économie, des finances et de
represented by Maria Patakia and Claudio Loggi, acting as                    l’industrie on the following questions:
Agents.
                                                                             1.     As Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and
                                                                                of the Council of 20 March 2000 (1) is silent on the point,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                         does the prohibition by a Member State of banking
                                                                                institutions duly established in its territory from remuner-
                                                                                ating sight accounts and other repayable funds constitute
—      Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                       an obstacle to freedom of establishment?
       within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
       administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       Directive 1999/42/EC ( 1) of the European Parliament and              2.     If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,
                                                                                what kind of reasons of the public interest might in an
       of the Council of 7 June 1999 establishing a mechanism
       for the recognition of qualifications in respect of the                      appropriate case be relied on to justify such an obstacle?
       professional activities covered by the Directives on liberal-
       isation and transitional measures and supplementing the
       general systems for the recognition of qualifications, or,            (1 ) Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the
       in any event, by failing to communicate them, the Italian                  Council of 20 March 2000 relating to the taking up and pursuit
       Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the                    of the business of credit institutions (OJ L 126 of 26.05.2000,
                                                                                p. 1).
       directive; and
—      Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Administratif, Paris, by order of that court of 12 June 1996 in the case of Société des Sucreries et Raffineries d'Erstein against Fonds d'Intervention et Régularisation du Marché du Sucre (Case C-269/96)

text:
No C 294/6             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5 . 10 . 96
Federatie van Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven,                       Administratif ( Administrative Court ), Paris, of 12 June
represented by M. van Empel, of the Amsterdam Bar, and T.              1996 , received at the Court Registry on 8 August 1996 , for a
Janssens, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in          preliminary ' ruling in the case of Société des Sucreries et
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 rue                      Raffineries d'Erstein against Fonds d'Intervention et
Goethe .                                                               Régularisation du Marché du Sucre , on the following
                                                                       questions :
The appellants claim that the Court should :
                                                                       — In an industrial site which processes sugar beet into
1 . Set aside the order of the president of the Court of First               white sugar, in which the first-stage installations take
     Instance in Case T- 18/96 R;                                            delivery of the sugar beet, process it and extract the
                                                                             sugar-bearing liquids and the second-stage installations
2 . Suspend payment by the               Stichting Certificatie              convert into white sugar the liquids and syrups in
     Kraanverhuurbedrijf ( SCK ) of the fine imposed on it by                question, which can be enriched by the addition of raw
     the Commission in the decision contested in the main                    cane sugar from the French Overseas Departments, can
     proceedings until the Court of First Instance has given                 the said second-stage installations, for the purposes of
     judgment in those proceedings , without requiring the                   the grant of refining aids for the refining of that sugar
     SCK to provide security in the form of a bank guarantee                  from the Overseas Departments, be regarded at all times
     or other security;                                                       as a 'production unit' and as a 'refinery' within the
                                                                             meaning of Regulations ( EEC ) No 1785/81 ('), Article 9
3 . Suspend payment by the Federatie Nederlandse                              and ( EEC ) No 2225/86 ( 2 )?
     Kranverhuurbedrijven ( FNK ) of the fine imposed on it
     by the Commission in the decision contested in the main           — If the answer is no, can such a complex of installations ,
     proceedings until the Court of First Instance has given                  intermittently and for non-continuous periods , be
     judgment in those proceedings, without requiring the                     regarded as a 'production unit' and as a ' refinery' within
     FNK to provide security in the form of a bank guarantee                  the meaning of those Regulations ?
     or other security;
                                                                       — If the answer to the preceding question is yes, must those
 4 . Order the Commission to grant to SCK and FNK access                      periods be limited to those in which the processing of
     to the files in Cases IV/34.179 , 34.202 , 216 , and to any              raw cane sugar into white sugar is carried out at a
     other files forming the basis for Decision 96/55 1 /EC,                  different time from the processing of syrups extracted
     including the Commission's internal documents relating                   from sugar beet in the first-stage installation on the same
     to consultation between DG III and DG IV concerning                      industrial site ?
     the Commission 's proceedings against FNK and SCK;
 5 . Order the Commission to pay the costs of these                    (') OJ No L 177, 1 . 7 . 1981 , p . 4 .
                                                                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 194, 17. 7. 1986, p . 7.
     proceedings, including the costs of the application for
      interim measures .
 In the alternative :
 6 . Set aside the order of the President of the Court of First
      Instance in Case T-18/96 R of 4 June 1996 and refer the
      case back to the Court of First Instance for another
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
      ruling;                                                          Administratif, Paris, by order of that court of 12 June 1996
                                                                       in the case of SA Laboratoires Sarget against Fonds
 7. Order the Commission to pay the costs of the                             d'lntervention et Regularisation du Marche du Sucre
      proceedings, including the costs of the application for                                   ( Case C-270/96 )
      interim measures .
                                                                                ( 96/C 294/11 )
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the Tribunal
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal                     Administratif ( Administrative Court ), Paris, of 12 June
 Administratif, Paris, by order of that court of 12 June 1996           1996 , received at the Court Registry on 8 August 1996 , for a
 in the case of Societe des Sucreries et Raffineries d'Erstein          preliminary ruling in the case of SA Laboratoires Sarget
 against Fonds d'lntervention et Regularisation du Marche               against Fonds d'lntervention et Regularisation du Marche
                               du Sucre                                 du Sucre , on the following question :
                         ( Case C-269/96 )
                           ( 96/C 294/ 10 )                             In view of their composition, presentation and functions, do
                                                                        the products ' Sargenor', ' Sarvit', ' Lysivit' and ' Dynamisan '
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 fall within the scope of Council Regulation ( EEC )
  European Communities by an order of the Tribunal                      No 1010/86 of 25 March 1986 (M on the classification of


title: Action brought on 4 July 1997 by Louis Koopman against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-202/97)

text:
C 7/18              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10. 1. 98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð order the Office to produce the working papers of the            Ð rule that Article 8 of Regulation (EEC/Euratom,
    Selection Board in competition AT/C, in particular the              ECSC) No 3947/92, adopted by the Council on
    assessment forms completed by the members of the                    21 December 1992, is applicable to the applicant,
    Selection Board and the examiners after the interview
    on 27 September 1996, together with the Board's final
    report,                                                        Ð consequently, annul the Commission's decision of
                                                                        21 October 1996 rejecting the applicant's request to
                                                                        be regraded pursuant to Article 32 (3) of the Staff
Ð annul the Selection Board's decision not to include the               Regulations,
    applicant on the list of suitable candidates drawn up
    in the context of that competition,
                                                                   Ð annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                        adopted by the Commission on 2 April 1997 expressly
Ð order the Office to pay all the costs.
                                                                        rejecting the applicant's complaint,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant, a grade C 3 official at the Commission,
challenges the Office's decision of 30 October 1996 not to         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
include her on the list of suitable members of the
temporary staff in category C for performing office and            The applicant, a former member of the temporary staff
administrative duties, in the context of competition AT/C.         classified in grade A 6, step 4, was appointed an official of
In that respect, she puts forward the following pleas in           the Court of Auditors on 1 July 1982 and classified in
law:                                                               grade A 6, step 3, in accordance with the rules applying at
                                                                   that time. On 1 September 1984 he was transferred to the
Ð first plea: insufficient reasons are given for the               Commission.
    decision,
                                                                   In consequence of the judgment delivered by the Court of
Ð second plea: the competition procedure is vitiated by            First Instance on 6 March 1996 in Case T-93/94 Becker v.
    the fact that the member of the Selection Board                Court of Auditors (1), he requested the appointing
    designated by the Staff Committee did not have the             authority of the Commission to review his classification in
    right to vote,                                                 step. In the aforesaid judgment, the Court of First Instance
                                                                   ruled that Article 32 of the Staff Regulations of officials,
Ð third plea: the decision was adopted in breach of the            as amended by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC)
    principle of non-discrimination,                               No 3947/92 of 21 December 1992 (2), should also apply
                                                                   to members of the temporary staff appointed as officials
Ð fourth plea: the Selection Board committed a manifest            prior to the entry into force of that amendment. The
    error of assessment by refusing to acknowledge that            Commission rejected the request on the ground that it was
    the applicant is capable of performing the tasks               out of time, maintaining that it should have been
    concerned (category C office and administrative                submitted within three months of publication of the
    duties), even though she has been performing similar           amendment to the Staff Regulations.
    tasks in the European Community institutions for
    more than 10 years.                                            The applicant considers that the contested decision
                                                                   disregards Article 90 (1) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                   inasmuch as that provision lays down no time limit for the
                                                                   submission of a request. He also maintains that the fact
                                                                   that he was appointed an official prior to the entry into
                                                                   force of the amendment to Article 32 of the Staff
Action brought on 4 July 1997 by Louis Koopman against             Regulations cannot preclude the application of the new
       the Commission of the European Communities                  provision in his favour, since any other interpretation
                                                                   would be contrary to the principle of equal treatment, as
                      (Case T-202/97)
                                                                   the Court of First Instance declared in the aforesaid
                         (98/C 7/55)                               judgment. Lastly, he maintains that, by failing to apply the
                                                                   amended provision automatically to him, and by then
               (Language of the case: French)                      claiming that his request for its application in his favour
                                                                   was out of time, the Commission completely failed to
An action against the Commission of the European                   fulfil its duty to have regard for the welfare and interests
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  of officials.
Instance of the European Communities on 4 July 1997 by
Louis Koopman, residing at Keerbergen (Belgium),                   (1) [1996] ECR-SC 91.
represented by Nicolas LhoeÈst, of the Brussels Bar, with an       (2) OJ L 404, 31. 12. 1992, p. 1.
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange.


title: Cases C-281/99 P and C-282/99 P: Appeal brought on 28 July 1999 by Ferriera Lamifer SpA (C-281/99 P) and Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA (C-282/99 P), against the judgment delivered on 12 May 1999 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96, T-122/97 and T-130/97, brought by Moccia Irme SpA, Prolafer Srl, Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA, Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Srl, Ferriera Lamifer SpA and Nuova Sidercamuna SpA, against Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.10.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 281/9
Appeal brought on 28 July 1999 by Ferriera Lamifer                      — Misuse of powers in terms of view of unequal treatment.
SpA (C-281/99 P) and Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA
(C-282/99 P), against the judgment delivered on 12 May
1999 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of                     (1) Decision of the ECSC Commission of 27 November 1991, OJ
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                     1991 L 362 of 31.12.1991, p. 57.
in Joined Cases T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96,
T-122/97 and T-130/97, brought by Moccia Irme SpA,
Prolafer Srl, Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA, Dora Ferri-
era Acciaieria Srl, Ferriera Lamifer SpA and Nuova Sider-
camuna SpA, against Commission of the European Com-
                              munities
                                                                        Action brought on 29 July 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Italian Republic
              (Cases C-281/99 P and C-282/99 P)
                                                                                (Case C-283/99)
                         (1999/C 281/17)                                                         (1999/C 281/18)
                                                                        An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 May 1999 by              Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 July
the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of                1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases              represented by Antonio Aresu and Maria Patakia, both of its
T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96, T-122/97 and                    Legal Service, acting as Agents, the office of Carlos Gómez de
T-130/97, brought by Moccia Irme SpA, Prolafer Srl, Ferriera            la Cruz, Wagner Centre Kirchberg.
Acciaieria Casilina SpA, Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Srl, Ferriera
Lamifer SpA and Nuova Sidercamuna SpA, against Com-
mission of the European Communities, was brought before                 The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 July             the Court should:
1999 by Ferriera Lamifer SpA, having its registered office in
Travagliato (Italy), and Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA having        a) Declare that, by providing that:
its registered office in Montecompatri (Italy), both represented
by Carmine Punzi, Mario Siragusa and Filippo Satta, of the                   — private security work (including surveillance or caretak-
Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                           ing of movable property and buildings) may be carried
Helvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2 place Winston Churchill, L-1340                     out in Italy, subject to licence, only by ‘private surveil-
Luxembourg.                                                                      lance firms’ holding Italian nationality;
                                                                             — only citizens in possession of such a licence may be
                                                                                employed as ‘qualified private security guards’;
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                             39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC; and
— grant these appeals, amend the contested decision accord-
     ingly and make an appropriate order for costs.                     b) Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The nationality requirement for ‘qualified private security
— Breach of Articles 4(c) and 95 of the ECSC Treaty inasmuch            guards’ constitutes an obstacle to freedom of movement for
     as the Court of First Instance held that Article 95 of the         workers contrary to Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after
     Treaty was not applicable to the State aids in question            amendment, Article 39 EC).
     where the requirements were not met for the applicability
     of the derogation under the Fifth Aid Code.                        The requirement of possession of Italian nationality restricts,
                                                                        furthermore, the right of any natural or legal person belonging
— Failure to state grounds for the judgment and misapplica-             to another Member State to work in Italy, contrary to
     tion of Community law inasmuch as the Court did not rule           Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43
     on the unlawfulness of Article 4(2) of the Fifth Code in           EC) on the freedom of establishment. So far as concerns legal
     relation to Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty.                       persons, Article 134 of the Consolidated Legislation on Public
                                                                        Security restricts the right to pursue such activity by means of
                                                                        a branch or agency, as expressly provided for in Article 43 EC.
— Breach and eroneous, illogical, irrational and groundless             Thus, the only way in which it would be possible for a foreign
     application of Article 4(2), second indent, of Commission          undertaking to establish itself in Italy would be by setting up a
     Decision 3855/91 (1).                                              subsidiary company under Italian law. Natural persons who
                                                                        are non-Italian Community citizens, on the other hand, are
— Breach, erroneous and groundless application of the                   precluded under Article 138 of the Consolidated Legislation on
     decision of the Commission of 12 December 1994; mis-               Public Security from establishing themselves as self-employed
     taken assumptions; mistaken investigation.                         ‘qualified private security guards’.


title: Case T-191/01: Action brought on 10 August 2001 by André Hecq against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.11.2001            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 317/31
      that his name was not on that list and against the                 Pleas in law and main arguments
      Commission’s decision not to promote him to grade A4
      under the 2000 promotions procedure;
                                                                         The applicant disputes two decisions of the office responsible
—     annul any related and/or subsequent decision;                      for settling claims under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme
                                                                         refusing to reimburse at 100 % of the cost of certain medical
—     annul the Commission’s implied decision rejecting the              services that he submits are linked to the serious illness from
      complaint submitted by the applicant under Article 90(2)           which his wife is suffering. In support of his action he alleges
      of the Staff Regulations on 27 December 2000;                      breach of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations and manifest
                                                                         error of assessment.
—     annul the 2000 A4 promotions procedure with regard to
      the applicant;
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs of the action.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Action brought on 28 August 2001 by Pierrette Dessy
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
In support of his action, the applicant puts forward the same
pleas in law as in Case T-188/01.
                                                                                (Case T-199/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 317/62)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 10 August 2001 by André Hecq against
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                        (Case T-191/01)                                  European Communities on 28 August 2001 by Pierrette Dessy,
                                                                         resident in Ispra (Italy), represented by Olivier Slusny, lawyer,
                        (2001/C 317/61)                                  with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         —     declare unlawful and annul the implied decision to reject
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                               the applicant’s complaint of 30 January 2001;
European Communities on 10 August 2001 by André Hecq,
resident in Mondercange (Luxembourg), represented by Carlos
Mourato, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.              —     rule that the applicant has the right, in accordance with
                                                                               the provisions of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, to
                                                                               100 % reimbursement for prescribed products;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     order the Appointing Authority to pay all the costs.
—     annul the decisions of 13 October 2000 and 6 November
      2000 of the Brussels office responsible for settling claims
      as well as the implied decision of 12 May 2001 of the
      Appointing Authority;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant to reimburse to the applicant the
      sum of 38,84 Euros plus default interest from 13 October
      2000;                                                              The applicant, a former Community official, presently in
                                                                         retirement, objects to the refusal of the administration to
—     order the defendant to reimburse to the applicant the              classify as reimbursable certain pharmaceutical products that
      sum of 26,51 Euros plus default interest from 6 Novem-             she needs for the treatment of a serious illness, within the
      ber 2000;                                                          meaning of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations, considering
                                                                         them to be ‘inefficacious’ as regards the condition from which
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the case.                  she is suffering.


title: Action brought on 16 January 1997 by Miguel Vicente-Nuñez against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-7/97)

text:
 5 . 4 . 97          I EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 108/21
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.                             Action brought on 27 January 1997 by Viglienzone
                                                                       Adriatica SpA against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
 (') OJ No C 146, 28 . 5 . 1994, p. 13 ,
     OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994, p . 22 .                                                    ( Case T-17/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/43
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 16 January 1997 by Miguel Vicente                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Nunez against the Commission of the European                           Instance on 27 January 1997 by Viglienzone Adriatica
                             Communities
                                                                       SpA, represented by Bruno Elia and Ivano Vigliotti, of the
                            ( Case T-7/97)                             Genoa Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                       the chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume .
                            ( 97/C 108/42 )
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
                (Language of the case: French)                         should :
                                                                       — annul, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 173
An action against the Commission of the European                           of the EC Treaty, the finding by which the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                          Commission, on 11 November 1996 , rejected
Instance of the European Communities on 16 January
                                                                           Viglienzone Adriatica SpA's application for
1997 by Miguel Vicente-Nunez, residing at Krainem                          prequalification for call for tenders No 96/C 177/08
( Belgium ), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege                concerning the control of food aid,
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau.
                                                                       — if necessary, annul or in any event declare
                                                                           inapplicable, under Article 184 of the EC Treaty,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                point 10, paragraph ( c ) (4 ) (in so far as it relates to
                                                                           the list of subsidiaries in the Member States of the
                                                                           European Union ) and the first sentence of the third
— annul the decision of the Commission of 22 March                         paragraph of point 12 ( in so far as it excludes the
      1996 , addressed to the applicant on 27 March and                    possibility of challenging decisions of the scrutiny
      received on 28 March, inasmuch as it rejected his                    committee ) of notice of tender No 96/C 177/08
      request of November 1995 to be reclassified in                       concerning 'European Union food aid/food security'
      another grade on the basis of Article 31 ( 2 ) of the                and 'prequalification of firms for participation in the
      Staff Regulations,                                                   forthcoming restricted invitation to tender for the
                                                                           provision of services relating to the coordination of
                                                                           consignments and quality and quantity control of
— annul in so far as necessary the decision of the                         foodstuffs, supplies as food aid',
      Commission of 16 October rejecting the complaint
      lodged by the applicant on 27 June 1996 against that
      decision,                                                        — adopt any other measure considered necessary,
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs .
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       The applicant is an company whose application for
                                                                       prequalification for the purposes of notice of tender No 96/
The applicant, an official in Grade A 6, Step 2, relies on             C 177/08 concerning 'European Union food aid/food
the same plea in law as in the action which he brought                 security' and 'prequalification of firms for participation in
against the Commission of the European Communities on                  the forthcoming restricted invitation to tender for the
27 June 1996 (T-100/96 ), alleging that Article 32 of the              provision of services relating to the coordination of
Staff Regulations and the sixth and eighth paragraphs of               consignments and quality and quantity control of
Article 2 of the Commission's decision of 1 September                  foodstuffs, supplies as food aid' ( J ) was rejected.
1983 have been infringed and that the principle of equal
treatment has been breached. According to the applicant,
the Commission has, moreover, disregarded the level and                In support of its claims, the applicant alleges, first,
extent of his experience prior to his joining the                      infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty. It states that the
Commission .                                                           duty to state reasons is particularly important in the case
                                                                       of measures which affect the legal position of the
                                                                       addressees, and that the contested measure has a
                                                                       considerable legal impact on Viglienzone, in so far as it


title: Case C-296/2000: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Sezione Terza Civile) (Supreme Court of Cassation, Third Civil Chamber) by interlocutory order of that court of 18 April 2000 in the case of the Prefect of the Province of Cuneo against Silvano Carbone as sole director of the private limited company "Expo Casa Manta Srl"

text:
C 302/16                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   21.10.2000
Does the standard fee applicable under Council Directive                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema
85/73/EEC (1) of 29 January 1985, in conjunction with Council              di Cassazione (Sezione Terza Civile) (Supreme Court of
Decision 88/408/EEC (2) of 15 June 1988, for the inspection                Cassation, Third Civil Chamber) by interlocutory order
of fresh meat intended for the domestic market in accordance               of that court of 18 April 2000 in the case of the Prefect of
with Council Directive 64/433/EEC (3) of 26 June 1964, as                  the Province of Cuneo against Silvano Carbone as sole
amended by Directive 89/662/EEC (4) of 11 December 1989,                   director of the private limited company ‘Expo Casa Manta
applicable pursuant to Council Directive 88/409/EEC (5) of                                                Srl’
15 June 1988, also cover the costs involved in carrying out a
bacteriological inspection required in an individual case?
                                                                                (Case C-296/2000)
( 1) OJ 1985 L 32, p. 14.                                                                          (2000/C 302/31)
( 2) OJ 1988 L 194, p. 24.
( 3) OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 185.
( 4) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13.                                                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( 5) OJ 1988 L 194, p. 28.                                                 European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di
                                                                           Cassazione (Sezione Terza Civile) of 18 April 2000, received
                                                                           at the Court Registry on 1 August 2000, for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the case of the Province of Cuneo against Silvano
                                                                           Carbone as sole director of the private limited company ‘Expo
                                                                           Casa Manta Srl’ on the following question:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-                  ‘Does a provision of national law which requires prior approval
hof, by judgment of that court of 27 April 2000, in the                    of cordless telephones coming from third countries for the
case of Davidoff & Company and Zino Davidoff SA v                          purposes of their being placed on the market only and not
                             GOFKID Ltd                                    also of their importation fall within the scope of Council
                                                                           Regulation (EC) No 519/94 (1) of 7 March 1994 and Council
                                                                           Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 (2) of 22 December 1994 on
                           (Case C-292/00)                                 common rules for imports from certain third countries?’
                           (2000/C 302/30)
                                                                           (1) OJ L 67 of 10 March 1994, p. 89.
                                                                           (2) OJ L 349 of 31 December 1994, p. 53.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) of 27 April 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 31 July 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Davidoff & Company SA and Zino Davidoff SA v
GOFKID Ltd on the following questions:
1.    Are the provisions of Article 4(4)(a) and Article 5(2) of
      First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
      1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States                    Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Regional Adminis-
      relating to trade marks (1) to be interpreted (and where             trative Court for Lazio) by judgment of that court of
      appropriate so applied) as also entitling the Member                 31 May and 6 July 2000 in the case of M. Balestreri and
      States to retain rules protecting well-known marks in                          L. Maura against the Regione Lombardia
      cases where the later mark is used or to be used for goods
      or services identical with or similar to those in respect of                                 (Case C-303/00)
      which the earlier mark is registered?
2.    Are the grounds mentioned in Articles 4(4)(a) and 5(2) of                                    (2000/C 302/32)
      the Trade Mark Directive (use which without due cause
      takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark) exhaus-         European Communities by judgment of the Tribunale Ammini-
      tive in regulating when it is permissible for provisions             strativo Regionale per il Lazio of 31 May and 6 July 2000,
      protecting well-known marks to be retained under                     received at the Court Registry on 8 August 2000, for a
      national law, or may those articles be supplemented by               preliminary ruling in the case of M. Balestreri and L. Maura
      national rules protecting well-known marks against later             against the Regione Lombardia on the following questions:
      signs which are used or to be used in respect of identical
      or similar goods or services?
                                                                           (1) Do the provisions contained in Articles 1, 4, 6 and 7 of
                                                                                Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.                                                          1992 (1) and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
                                                                                (EEC) No 534/92 of 9 March 1993 (2) permit derogation
                                                                                from the time-limits for the allocation of quotas, and thus
                                                                                for adjustments and levies, where it is found, when