title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 1999 in Case C-120/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal): Upjohn Ltd v. The Licensing Authority established by the Medicines Act 1968 and Others (Proprietary medicinal products - Revocation of a marketing authorisation - Judicial review)

text:
10.4.1999           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 100/1
                                                               I
                                                        (Information)
                                           COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                    COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                               1. Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                      11 December 1996 in Case T-70/94 Comafrica and
                     (Sixth Chamber)                                  Dole Fresh Fruit Europe v. Commission.
                    of 21 January 1999
in Case C-73/97 P: French Republic v. Comafrica SpA and           2. Dismisses the application for annulment lodged by
                         Others (1)                                   Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd &
                                                                      Co. as inadmissible.
(Appeal Ð Banana sector Ð Annulment of Regulation
        (EC) No 3190/93 Ð Plea of inadmissibility)
                                                                  3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
                     (1999/C 100/01)
                                                                  (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
               (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-73/97 P, French Republic (Agents: Catherine de
Salins, Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and FreÂdeÂric Pascal) Ð
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of
11 December 1996 in Case T-70/94 Comafrica and Dole                                      (Fifth Chamber)
Fresh Fruit Europe v. Commission [1996] ECR II-1741,
seeking to have that judgment partially set aside in so far                            of 21 January 1999
as it rejected the plea of inadmissibility raised by the          in Case C-120/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Commission, the other parties to the proceeding being             the Court of Appeal): Upjohn Ltd v. The Licensing
Comafrica SpA, a company governed by Italian law,                 Authority established by the Medicines Act 1968 and
established in Genoa (Italy), Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd                                    Others (1)
& Co., a company governed by German law, established
in Hamburg (Germany), represented by Bernard                      (Proprietary medicinal products Ð Revocation of a
O'Connor, Solicitor, with an address for service in                       marketing authorisation Ð Judicial review)
Luxembourg at the Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22
                                                                                (1999/C 100/02)
Rue Marie-Adelaïde, Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Xavier Lewis) and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Ð the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn                             (Language of the case: English)
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini,
J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and K. M. Ioannou, Judges;
J. Mischo, Advocate-General: R. Grass, Registrar, has             In Case C-120/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
given a judgment on 21 January 1999, in which it:                 of the EC Treaty from the Court of Appeal (England and
 ---pagebreak--- C 100/2                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.4.1999
Wales) (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the                   the marketing authorisation in question without
proceedings pending before that court between Upjohn                      awaiting the opinion of the Committee for Proprietary
Ltd and The Licensing Authority established by the                        Medicinal Products.
Medicines Act 1968 and Others Ð on the interpretation
of Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on
                                                                     (1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997.
the approximation of provisions laid down by law,
regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary
medicinal products (OJ, English Special Edition 1965Ð
1966, p. 20) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho
de Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward
and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-General; D.
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 January 1999, in
which it has ruled:                                                                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 21 January 1999
                                                                     in    Case    C-207/97: Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                                                                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfill its obligation Ð
1. Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on                 Council Directive 76/464/EEC Ð Water pollution Ð
     the approximation of provisions laid down by law,                                     Failure to transpose)
     regulation or administrative action relating to
     proprietary medicinal products and, more generally,                                     (1999/C 100/03)
     Community law do not require the Member States to
     establish a procedure for judicial review of national
     decisions     revoking    authorisations     to   market                         (Language of the case: French)
     proprietary medicinal products, empowering the
     competent national courts and tribunals to substitute
     their assessment of the facts and, in particular, of the          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     scientific evidence relied on in support of the                            published in the European Court Reports)
     revocation decision for the assessment made by the
     national authorities competent to revoke such
     authorisations.                                                 In Case C-207/97, Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agents: initially Richard B. Wainwright and
                                                                     Jean-Francis Pasquier, and subsequently Richard B.
                                                                     Wainwright and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra) v. Kingdom of
                                                                     Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder) Ð application for a
                                                                     declaration that, by not adopting pollution reduction
2. Community law does not require a National Court or                programmes including quality objectives for water Ð at
     Tribunal which is seised of an application for                  least in respect of 99 substances listed in an annex to the
     annulment of a decision revoking a marketing                    application Ð or by not communicating to the
     authorisation for a particular proprietary medicinal            Commission summaries of such programmes and the
     product to take into account, when determining that             results of their implementation, in infringement of Article 7
     application, any relevant scientific material coming to         of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on
     light after the adoption of that decision.                      pollution caused by certain dangerous substances
                                                                     discharged into the aquatic environment of the
                                                                     Community (OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23), the Kingdom of
                                                                     Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
                                                                     Treaty Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G.
                                                                     Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, H.
                                                                     Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou
3. Directive 65/65/EC and Second Council Directive 75/               (Rapporteur), Judges; Advocate-General: J. Mischo; L.
     319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approximation of                  Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
     provisions laid down by law, regulation or                      judgment on 21 January 1999, in which it:
     administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal
     products, as amended by Directive 83/570/EEC are to
     be construed as meaning that, where the matter has              1. Declares that, by not adopting pollution reduction
     been referred by various Member States to the                        programmes including quality objectives for water in
     Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products                         respect of the 99 substances listed in the annex to the
     following the adoption by the competent national                     application, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
     authority of a decision revoking a marketing                         fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of Council
     authorisation and the time-limit for the issue by that               Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution
     Committee of its opinion has expired, those directives               caused by certain dangerous substances discharged
     do not preclude that authority from deciding to revoke               into the aquatic environment of the Community.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 21 October 2002 in Case T-97/01: Christos Gogos v Commission of the European Communities (No need to give a judgment)

text:
25.1.2003                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 19/35
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and J. Currall) — application for,
                         of 7 October 2002                                   essentially, annulment of the decision of the selection board
                                                                             for internal competition COM/A/17/96 not to include the
in Case T-24/01: Claire Staelen v Council of the European                    applicant in the list of successful candidates on the ground
               Union and European Parliament (1)                             that he did not obtain the minimum requisite number of
                                                                             marks in the oral test and seeking compensation for the
                                                                             material and non-material damage allegedly suffered — the
(Officials — Open competition — Delegation of the appoint-                   Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
           ing authority’s powers — Inadmissibility)
                                                                             N.J. Forwood , President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
                                                                             H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 21 October 2002, the
                           (2003/C 19/66)                                    operative part of which is as follows:
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             1.     There is no need to adjudicate on the present application.
In Case T-24/01: Claire Staelen, member of the temporary staff               2.     The Commission shall bear the whole of the costs.
of the European Parliament, residing in Bridel (Luxembourg),
represented by J. Choucroun, lawyer, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Council of the European Union
(Agents: F. Anton and A. Pilette) and European Parliament                    (1 ) OJ C 186, 30.6.2001.
(Agents: J.F. De Wachter and D. Moore) — application for
annulment of the entire marking procedure in respect of the
written tests for Competition EUR/A/151/98 or, otherwise,
annulment of the decision of the selection board refusing to
admit her to the tests subsequent to test VII.A.d) and, in the
alternative, for compensation in respect of the non-material
damage allegedly suffered — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President of the Chamber,
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 7 October 2002, the operative part of which is as
                                                                             ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
follows:
                                                                                INSTANCE
1.    The application in Case T-24/01 is dismissed as clearly
      inadmissible in so far as it is brought against the Council.                                   of 17 October 2002
2.    Each of the parties shall bear its own costs in the present action
      in so far as it is brought against the Council, including those
      relating to the proceedings for interim relief.                        in Case T-215/02 R: Santiago Gómez-Reino v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
( 1) OJ C 95, 24.3.2001.
                                                                             (Procedure for interim relief — Officials — Admissibility —
                                                                                Act adversely affecting an official)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/68)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 21 October 2002                                                       (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-97/01: Christos Gogos v Commission of the
                    European Communities ( 1)
                   (No need to give a judgment)                              In Case T-215/02 R: Santiago Gómez-Reino, an official of
                                                                             the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                           (2003/C 19/67)                                    Brussels, represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer, against Com-
                                                                             mission of the European Communities (Agents: H.P. Hartvig
                                                                             and J. Currall) — application for interim measures requiring,
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                           first, the production of certain documents, second, the suspen-
                                                                             sion of a number of decisions or prohibiting decisions to be
                                                                             taken relating to internal investigations conducted by the
In Case T-97/01: Christos Gogos, an official of the Commission               European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and, third, the adoption of
of the European Communities, represented by C. Tagaras,                      measures under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — the


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 6 February 1995 in Case T-460/93 DEP: Etienne Tête and Others v. European Investment Bank (Taxation of costs)

text:
25 . 3 . 95            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 74/ 11
composed of A. Kalogeropoulos, President, and D. P. M.                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Barrington and K. Lenaerts, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has                                 of 6 February 1995
given a judgment on 2 February 1995, in which it:                    in Case T-460/93 DEP: Etienne Tête and Others v.
                                                                                European Investment Bank ( x )
1 . annuls the decision of the President of the European                                      (Taxation of costs)
     Parliament of 16 June 1992 appointing Mrs X                                                  ( 95/C 74/21 )
     temporarily to the post of Language Adviser in the
     Danish Translation Division (Directorate-General for
     Translation and General Services);                                              (Language of the case: French)
2. orders the defendant to pay the costs.                            In Case T-460/93 DEP: Etienne Tête, residing at
                                                                     Caluire-et-Cuire ( France ), Jean-Pierre Raffin, residing at
                                                                     Paris, Felix Masola, residing at Villeurbanne ( France ),
0 ) OJ No C 34, 6 . 2 . 1993 .                                       Louis-Max Duplessy, residing at Villeurbanne,
                                                                     Marie-Louise Guigen, residing at Villeurbanne, Henri
                                                                     Chavaleyre, residing at Villeurbanne, Francois Meillasson,
                                                                     residing at Villeurbanne, Jean Margerand, residing at
                                                                     Villeurbanne, Jean-Claude                Pagand, residing   at
                                                                     Villeurbanne, Henri Alloix, residing at Villeurbanne,
                                                                     Groupe des Elus Verts au Conseil Regional, established at
                                                                     Charbonnières-les-Bains ( France ), Collectif Auto-stop,
    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             established at Lyon ( France ), Association Sauvegarde de
                       (Fourth Chamber)                              l'Ouest Lyonnais, established at Caluire-et-Cuire,
                                                                     represented by Jean-Marc Bazy, of the Lyon Bar, with an
                      of 23 January 1995                             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
in Case T-84/94 : Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter eV              Monique Wirion, 1 Place du Theatre v. European
      v. Commission of the European Communities ( J )                Investment Bank (Agents : L. La Marca and C. Turk ) —
                          (Admissibility)                            application for the taxation of costs following the order of
                                                                     the Court of First Instance of 26 November 1993 in Case
                           ( 95/C 74/20                              T-460/93 Tête and Others v. European Investment Bank —
                                                                     the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended
                                                                     Composition ), composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President, A.
              (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     Saggio, H. Kirschner, A. Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili,
                                                                     Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 6 February
In Case T-84/94 : Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter eV,              1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
established in Bonn ( Germany), represented by Joachim
Müller, Rechtsanwalt of Munich, with an address for                  the total amount ofthe costs recoverable by the defendant in
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jean Wagener                 Case T-460/93 is set at Bfr 220 000.
and Alain Rukavina, 10A Boulevard de la Foire, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents : M. J.
                                                                      f 1 ) OJ No C 339 , 22 . 12 . 1992 .
Jonczy and N. Lorenz ) — application for the annulment of
the Commission's decision of 4 November 1993 rejecting
the applicant's complaint seeking a declaration that the
German legislation on tax advisors infringes Articles 59 and
86 of the EC Treaty and that, by failing to take the necessary
applications in order to comply with the EC Treaty, the
Federal Republic of Germany has infringed Articles 5 and 90
of the EC Treaty — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth              Action brought on 19 January 1995 by Cantine dei Colli
Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, R.                    Berici Cooperative A.R.L. against the Commission of the
Schintgen and R. García-Valdecasas, Judges; H. Jung,                                      European Communities
Registrar, made an order on 23 January 1995 , the operative                                      ( Case T-6/95 )
part of which is as follows :                                                                      ( 95/C 74/22 )
1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
2 . the applicant shall pay the costs.                               An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 19 January 1995
0 ) OJ No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994.                                     by the Cantine dei Colli Berici Coop . A.R.L. , represented by
                                                                     Ivone Cacciavillani, of the Venice Bar, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 5 1
                                                                     Rue Albert I.


title: Case T-441/11: Action brought on 12 August 2011 — Peftiev v Council

text:
               1.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 290/17

         Action brought on 12 August 2011 — Peftiev v Council
   (Case T-441/11)
   2011/C 290/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Vladimir Peftiev (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: V. Vaitkute Pavan, A. Smaliukas and E. Matulionyte, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 588/2011 of 20 June 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 161, p. 1), to the extent that it concerns the applicant;

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2011/357/CFSP of 20 June 2011 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 161, p. 25), to the extent that it concerns the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the obligation to provide adequate reasoning for inclusion of the applicant in the lists of the persons to whom restrictive measures apply.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the right of defence and the right to a fair hearing provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as:

                           —

                           at no time it provided for the communication of detailed reasons for the inclusion of the applicant in the lists of persons subject to the restrictive measures; and

                           —

                           it did not provide the applicant with the possibility to effectively exercise his rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard and the right to the benefit of a procedure allowing him to effectively request his removal from the lists of persons covered by the restrictive measures.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment in that it held that the applicant is a person associated with President Lukashenko and his family, that he is chief economic advisor of President Lukashenko, that he is a key financial sponsor of the Lukashenko regime and that BelTechExport is a company chaired by the applicant and is the largest export/import company of defence products in Belarus.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed fundamental the right to property provided for in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 1 of the Protocol No 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in an unjustified and disproportionate manner without compelling evidence.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringes the principle of proportionality in that it imposed a disproportionate restriction on the fundamental rights of the applicant without providing adequate procedural guarantees and compelling evidence.


12 . 8 . 95             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 208/37
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-107/93 and                         Removal from the register of Case T-l 97/93 (*)
                                others (M                                                           ( 95 /C 208/ 80 )
                           ( 95/C 208/77 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                 (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the First Chamber,
By order of 29 June 1 995 the President of the First Chamber,            Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the              European Communities ordered the removal from the
European Communities ordered the removal from the                        register of Case T-l 97/93 : Friedrich Bethke v. Council of the
register of Joined Cases T-107/93 : Christian Hansen,                    European Union and Commission of the European
T-109/93 : Liesa Thomsen, T-136/93 : Herbert Sonnenberg,                 Communities .
T-153/93 : F. Steensen-Feddersen, T-178/93 : H.-P . Fock,
T-180/93 : E. Ebsen, T-182/93 : R.-D . Tetens, T-192/93 : M.             (') OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 .
Hansen, T-193/93 : H. Ketelsen, T-194/93 : Ch . Jessen,
T-212/93 : H. Thomsen, T-219/93 : H. Johannsen,
T-226/93 : J. Nielsen, T-227/93 : T. Petersen, T-228/93 : J. H.
Sell, T-229/93 : K. Friedrichsen, T-230/93 : K. Ingwersen,
T-232/93 : J. Johannsen, T-236/93 : P. Carstensen,
T-239/93 : P. A. Petersen and T-240/93 : U. Dethlefsen v.                Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-198/93 ,
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                                 T-199/93 , T-200/93 and T-204/93 (')
European Communities .
                                                                                ( 95/C 208/81 )
(M OJ No C 222 , 6 . 9 . 1990 ; OJ No C 34, 9 . 2 . 1991 ; OJ No C 109 ,
     29 . 4 . 1992 and OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 .                                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         By order of 29 June 1 995 the President of the First Chamber,
                                                                         Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                         register of Joined Cases T-198/93 , T-199/93 , T-200/93 and
       Removal from the register of Case T-122/93 ( )                    T-204/93 : Detlef Maack and Others v. Commission of the
                            ( 95/C 208/78 )                              European Communities .
                  (Language of the case: German)                         m OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 .
By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the First Chamber,
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case T-122/93 : Franz-Joseph Kliemann v.
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                             Removal from the register of Case T-17/94 (')
European Communities .                                                                               ( 95/C 208/ 82 )
 (') OJ No C 34, 9 . 2 . 1991 .                                                           (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         By order of 22 June 1995 the President of the Fourth
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
 Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-144/93 and                  T-17/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
                              T-145/93 (')                                Communities .
                             ( 95 /C 208/79 )
                                                                          (') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                  (Language of the case: German)
 By order of 29 June 1 995 the President of the First Chamber,
 Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
 European Communities ordered the removal from the                             Removal from the register of Case T-228/94 (')
 register of Joined Cases T-144/93 and T-145/93 : Ernst Theis
 and Karl Leonhauser v. Council of the European Union and                                             ( 95/C 208/83 )
 Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
 (') OJ No C 50 , 26 . 2 . 1991 and OJ No C 146 , 5 . 6 . 1991 .
                                                                          By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the First Chamber,
                                                                          Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the


title: Action brought on 1 February 1996 by Lino Liao against the Council of the European Union (Case T-15/96)

text:
No C 77/ 18        1 EN |                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16 . 3 . 96
As regards Regulation ( EC ) No 2565/95 , the applicants, in           Government of Biscay of the other part. By the contested
seeking its annulment, claim, first of all, that it does not state     decision, the Commission considered that the new
reasons as required by Article 190 of the EC Treaty and,               agreement, which runs from 1995 to 1998 , does not
secondly, that Article 155 of the EC Treaty has been                   constitute State aid .
infringed since the Commission, which is entrusted with
safeguarding the rule of law in the Community, was aware               The applicant claims, first, that the Commission disregarded
of the unlawfulness of the basis of Regulation ( EC ) No               the principle audi alteram partem in deciding to terminate
1671 /95 , it should not have proceeded to adopt a                     the procedure laid down in Article 93 ( 2 ) without giving the
Regulation in implementation thereof.                                  complainant the opportunity to submit comments . It points
                                                                       out in that connection that at no time during the procedure
(>) OJ No C 315 , 25 . 11 . 1995 , p . 22 .                            was it informed that a new agreement had been drawn up
                                                                       and concluded between the Spanish authorities and Ferries
                                                                       Golfo de Vizcaya, an agreement of whose content it is a
                                                                       fortiori unaware; it was therefore unable to submit
                                                                       observations on the new agreement.
                                                                       The applicant also considers that the contested decision
Action brought on 1 February 1996 by Societe Bretagne                  does not satisfy the requirement under Article 190 of the EC
Angleterre Irlande (BAI ) againt the Commission of the                 Treaty to state the reasons on which it is based, since it does
                  European Communities                                 not permit the parties concerned to know the reasons which
                        ( Case T-14/96 )                               led the Commission to consider that the new agreement does
                          ( 96/C 77/38 )
                                                                       not constitute State aid or permit the Community judicature
                                                                       to exercise judicial review. The applicant adds that in
                                                                       addition to the obviously inadequate statement of reasons,
               (Language of the case: French)                          the contested decision contains manifest errors .
An action against the Commission of the European                       Secondly, the applicant claims that the agreement concluded
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      under the aegis of the Commission favours Ferries Golfo de
Instance of the European Communities on 1 February 1996                Vizcaya because it concerns either a Spanish or Basque
by Bretagne Angleterre Irlande ( Brittany Ferries ), a                 undertaking, or an undertaking having its registered office
company whose registered office is in Roscoff ( France ),              in Spain or the Basque country. By allowing and ratifying
represented by Jean-Michel Payre, of the Paris Bar, with an            such discrimination, however considerable the ensuing
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   obstacle to freedom to provide services , the Commission has
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue,                                              infringed Article 6 of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with
                                                                       Articles 3f and 92 ( 1 ).
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           Lastly, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 92 ( 1 ) of
                                                                       the EC Treaty, pointing out that massive buying of Ferries
— annul the Commission's decision in State Aid C 32/93 ,               Golfo de Vizcaya transport vouchers by the Spanish
    published in the Official Journal of the European                  authorities strengthens that company's position and the
     Communities on 1 December 1995 ( OJ No C 321 ,                    question of the financial profitability or otherwise of the
    P - 4 ),                                                           ferry service thus guaranteed is irrelevant, contrary to what
                                                                       is stated in the contested decision .
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The applicant, a French shipping company which has for
many years operated a ferry shipping line between the ports            Action brought on 1 February 1996 by Lino Liao against the
of Plymouth ( England ) and Santander ( Spain ), states that on                       Council of the European Union
21 September 1992 it lodged a complaint with the
Commission concerning an agreement concluded between                                          ( Case T-15/96 )
the shipping company Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya SA on the                                          ( 96/C 77/39 )
one hand and the Regional Government of Biscay
( Diputacion Foral de Vizcaya ) and the Ministry of
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Commerce and Tourism of the Basque Government
( Gobierno Vasco ) on the other. The Commission decided to
initiate the procedure laid down in Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC         An action against the Council of the European Union was
Treaty, since it considered that various aspects of the                brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
agreement seemed to indicate a special relationship                    Communities on 1 February 1995 by Lino Liao, residing in
involving State aid. In response to the initiation of the              Brussels, represented by Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten and
Article 93 (2 ) procedure, the agreement at issue was                  Constantin Nikis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
suspended and a new agreement concluded between Ferries                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz,
Golfo de Vizcaya of the one part and the Regional                      2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
 ---pagebreak---  16 . 3 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 77/ 19
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          that such promotion was justified by his qualifications and
                                                                      situation, and that this has undeniably caused him to suffer
— annul the definitive staff report for the period from               material and non-material damage .
      1 July 1991 to 30 June 1993 , dated 6 November 1995 ,
     which was notified to the applicant on 9 November                (') Case T-161 /95 ( OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 , p . 27 ).
      1995 ,
— award the sum of Bfr 250 000, to be increased or
     decreased as appropriate during the course of the
     proceedings, as compensation for the material damage                   Removal from the register of Case T-106/92 (')
     suffered by the applicant in consequence of his having
     been denied any chance of promotion,                                                         ( 96/C 77/40 )
— award the sum of Bfr 75 000, to be increased or                                    (Language of the case: French)
     decreased as appropriate during the course of the
     proceedings, as compensation for the non-material                By order of 25 January 1996 the President of the Second
     damage suffered by the applicant,                                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
— order the Council to pay all of the costs.                          T- 106/92 : Erik Dan Frederiksen v. European Parliament.
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                      (') OJ No C 34 , 6 . 2 . 1993 .
The applicant states that he did not agree with the initial
version of his staff report for 1991 /1993 , and that this
prompted him, after he had taken certain internal steps, to
bring an action before the Court of First Instance ( 1 ). The
defendant then drew up a fresh report covering the same                     Removal from the register of Case T- 1 97/94 ( J )
period . That definitive report is contested by the applicant in                                 ( 96/C 77/41 )
the present case .
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant pleads, first, infringement of Article 43 of the
Staff Regulations of officials and of the guide to staff              By order of 31 January 1996 the President of the Third
reports, which provide for a periodical report to be drawn            Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
up at least once every two years; he maintains that the first         Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
report was communicated to him over 15 months late, and               from the register of Case T-197/94 : Scholler Lebensmittel
the second nearly two years late . In consequence of the              GmbH & Co . KG v. Commission of the European
delay, it was only possible, at meetings of the promotion             Communities .
committee, to assess the applicant on the basis of the report
drawn up in relation to him at the expiry of his probationary         (') OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7 . 1994 .
period . In his view, it may reasonably be concluded that, if
the staff report had been drawn up in good time, that would
have greatly ameliorated his professional situation .
The applicant also maintains that the procedure followed                    Removal from the register of Case T-92/95 ( ! )
was irregular, inasmuch as it is apparent from an
examination of the two reports that they were signed by the                                      ( 96/C 77/42 )
first and second assessors before being signed by the
applicant, despite the fact that the guide to staff reports                          (Language of the case: Italian)
provides for the report to be signed by the second assessor
after the official concerned has been given an opportunity of        By order of 29 January 1996 the President of the Second
making comments or remarks thereon and, where                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
appropriate, of requesting a discussion or exchange of views          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
with the second assessor.                                            T-92/95 : Tiziano Boggian v. Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities .
Lastly, the applicant states that those irregularities have
deprived him of any chance of promotion, despite the fact             (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 30 November 1995 in Case C-134/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias): Esso Española SA v. Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias (Petroleum products - Obligation to supply a particular area)

text:
3 . 2 . 96             EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          No C 31 /5
3 . A national of a Member State who pursues a                         of Cassation ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
     professional activity on a stable and continuous basis in         pending before that court between Elisabeth Jacquier, nee
     another Member State where he holds himself out from              Casarin and Directeur General des Impots — on the
     an established professional base to, amongst others,              interpretation of Article 95 of the EC Treaty — the Court
     nationals of that State comes under the provisions of the         ( Second Chamber ), composed of G. Hirsch, President of
     chapter relating to the right of establishment and not            the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and F. A. Schockweiler
     those of the chapter relating to services.                        ( Rapporteur ), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
                                                                       L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
4 . The possibility for a national of a Member State to                judgment on 30 November 1995 , in which it rules :
     exercise his right of establishment, and the conditions
     for the exercise of that right, must be determined in the         Article 95 of the EC Treaty does not preclude the
     light of the activities which he intends to pursue on the         application of national rules on motor vehicle taxation
     territory of the host Member State.                               which provide for an increase in the progression coefficient
                                                                       of the kind at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as that
5 . Where the taking-up of a specific activity is not subject          increase does not have the effect of favouring the sale of
     to any rules in the host State, a national of any other           vehicles of domestic manufacture over the sale of vehicles
     Member State will be entitled to establish himself on the         imported from other Member States.
     territory of the first State and pursue that activity there.
     On the other hand, where the taking-up or the pursuit of
                                                                       (') OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 .
     a specific activity is subject to certain conditions in the
     host Member State, a national ofanother Member State
     intending to pursue that activity must in principle
     comply with them .
6 . National measures liable to hinder or make less
     attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     guaranteed by the Treaty must fulfil four conditions:
     they must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner;                                          ( Sixth Chamber)
     they must be justified by imperative requirements in the                                   of 30 November 1995
     general interest; they must be suitable for securing the
     attainment of the objective which they pursue; and they           in Case C-134/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
     must not go beyond what it necessary in order to                  the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias ): Esso
     attain it.                                                            Española SA v. Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias ( x )
                                                                       (Petroleum products — Obligation to supply a particular
7. Member States must take account of the equivalence of                                                   area)
     diplomas and, if necessary, proceed to a comparison of                                           ( 96/C 31 / 10 )
     the knowledge and qualifications required by their
     national rules and those of the person concerned.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(') OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-134/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  of the EEC Treaty from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de
                                                                        Canarias (High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands,
                        ( Second Chamber )
                                                                       Spain ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                     of 30 November 1995                                before that court between Esso Espanola SA and the
in Case C-l 13/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from             Comunidad Autonoma de Canarias on the interpretation of
the French Cour de Cassation ): Elisabeth Jacquier v.                   Articles 3 ( c ), 5 , 6 , 30, 36 , 52, 53 , 56 , 85 and 102 ( 1 ) of the
                Directeur Général des Impôts C )                        EC Treaty, the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of
                                                                        G. Hirsch, acting as President of the Chamber,
 (Article 95 of the Treaty — Differential tax on motor                  G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn
                               vehicles)                                ( Rapporteur ) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges ; G. Cosmas,
                            ( 96/C 31 /09 )                             Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                        on 30 November 1995 , in which it rules as follows :
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         1 . Articles 3 (c), 52 and 53 of the EC Treaty are not
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                applicable to circumstances wholly internal to a
           published in the European Court Reports)                          Member State, such as where a company which has its
                                                                             head office in a Member State and pursues its activities
 In Case C-l 13/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177                there is required to comply with rules whereby the
 of the EC Treaty from the French Cour de Cassation ( Court                  regional authorities of a Member State responsible for
 ---pagebreak--- No C 31 /6          MEN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     3 . 2 . 96
     governing an archipelago forming part ofthe territory of               decision ordering expulsion before a competent
     that State require all petroleum product wholesalers                   authority has given its opinion.
     wishing to extend their activities to that part of the
     national territory to supply a certain number of islands
     in the archipelago, having regard to the problems of             2 . Article 9 (1 ) of Directive 64/221 /EEC does not preclude
     supplying insular regions.                                             the competent authority referred to in that provision
                                                                            from being appointed by the same administrative
                                                                            authority as takes the decision ordering expulsion,
2 . Such rules are compatible with Article 85, read in                      provided that the competent authority can perform its
     conjunction with the second paragraph ofArticle 5, and                 duties in absolute independence and is not subject to any
     with Article 30 of the EC Treaty.                                      control by the authority empowered to take the
                                                                            measures provided for in the Directive. It is for the
                                                                            national court to determine in each case whether those
3 . Article 102 (1 ) of the EC Treaty does not give rise to
     individual rights which the courts must protect.                       requirements have been met.
                                                                      ( 1 ) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
(') OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       ( Sixth Chamber )                                                        ( Fifth Chamber)
                    of 30 November 1995                                                    of 30 November 1995
in Case C-l 75/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                   in Case C-l 18/95 : Commission of the European
the Court of Appeal ): The Queen v. Secretary of State for the                       Communities v. Italian Republic ( J )
       Home Department, ex parte John Gallagher ( ] )                 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
(Freedom of movement for persons — Derogations —                      Directives 92/33/EEC and 92/34/EEC — Failure to
Decisions concerning the control of foreign nationals —                                               transpose)
Decision ordering expulsion — Prior opinion of the                                                 ( 96/C 31 / 12 )
                     competent authority)
                          ( 96/C 31 / 11 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-175/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Court of Appeal, London, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that             In Case C-l 18/95 : Commission of the European
court between The Queen and Secretary of State for the                Communities ( Agent: Eugenio de March ) v. Italian Republic
Home Department, ex parte John Gallagher — on the                     ( Agents : Umberto Leanza and Maurizio Fiorilli ) —
interpretation of Council Directive 64/22 1 /EEC of                   application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within
25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures              the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals            administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
which are justified on grounds of public policy, public               Directive 92/33/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the marketing of
security or public health ( OJ, English Special Edition               vegetable propagating and planting material, other than
 1963-1964, p. 117 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),                   seed ( OJ 1992 , No L 157, p. 1 ) and Council Directive
composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber,                  92/34/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the marketing of fruit plant
G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G.             propagating material and fruit plants intended for fruit
Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate                 production ( OJ 1992 , No L 157, p. 10 ), the Italian Republic
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has            has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the
given a judgment on 30 November 1995 , the operative part              Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward,
of which is as follows :                                              President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, C. Gulmann,
                                                                      P. Jann and L. Sevon ( Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cosmas,
                                                                       Advocate General ; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on
 1 . Article 9 (I ) of Council Directive 64/221 /EEC of                30 November 1995 the operative part of which is as
     25 February 1964 on the coordination of special                   follows :
     measures concerning the movement and residence of
     foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of
     public policy, public security or public health must be           1 . By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
     interpreted as meaning that, save in cases of urgency, it               administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     prohibits the administrative authority from taking a                    Council Directive 92/33/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the


title: Case C-442/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) — Churchill Insurance Company Limited v Benjamin Wilkinson and Tracy Evans v Equity Claims Limited (Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 84/5/EEC — Article 1(4) and Article 2(1) — Third parties victims of an accident — Express or implied authorisation to drive — Directive 90/232/EEC — First subparagraph of Article 1 — Directive 2009/103/EC — Articles 10, 12(1) and 13(1) — Victim of a road traffic accident who was a passenger in a vehicle in respect of which he was insured to drive — Vehicle driven by a person not insured under the insurance policy — Insured victim not deprived of insurance cover)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) — Churchill Insurance Company Limited v Benjamin Wilkinson and Tracy Evans v Equity Claims Limited
   (Case C-442/10) (1)

   (Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 84/5/EEC - Article 1(4) and Article 2(1) - Third parties victims of an accident - Express or implied authorisation to drive - Directive 90/232/EEC - First subparagraph of Article 1 - Directive 2009/103/EC - Articles 10, 12(1) and 13(1) - Victim of a road traffic accident who was a passenger in a vehicle in respect of which he was insured to drive - Vehicle driven by a person not insured under the insurance policy - Insured victim not deprived of insurance cover)
   2012/C 32/17
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Churchill Insurance Company Limited, Tracy Evans

      Defendants: Benjamin Wilkinson, Equity Claims Limited

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Articles 12(1) and 13(1) of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16th September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11) — Road accident victim who, at the time of the accident, is a passenger in the vehicle which he is insured to drive but which is being driven by an uninsured driver whom the victim had authorised to drive — Provisions of national law excluding the victim from being covered by the insurance

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1, first subparagraph, of the Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and Article 2(1) of the Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, must be interpreted as precluding national rules the effect of which is to omit automatically the requirement that the insurer compensate a passenger who is a victim of a road traffic accident when that accident was caused by a driver who was not insured under the insurance policy and when the victim, who was a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the accident, was insured to drive the vehicle himself but who had given permission to the driver to drive it.

               2.

               The answer to the first question is not different depending on whether the insured victim was aware that the person to whom he gave permission to drive the vehicle was not insured to do so, whether he believed that the driver was insured or whether or not he had turned his mind to that question.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2003 in Case T-353/00: Jean-Marie Le Pen v European Parliament (Act of the Parliament — Disqualification of a Member of the European Parliament from holding office — Application of national law — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Inadmissibility)

text:
7.6.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 135/25
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 10 April 2003                                                             of 10 April 2003
in Case T-353/00: Jean-Marie Le Pen v European Parlia-                      in Case T-366/00: Scott SA v Commission of the European
                                ment ( 1)                                                              Communities ( 1)
                                                                            (Action for annulment — State aid — Regulation (EC)
(Act of the Parliament — Disqualification of a Member of
                                                                            No 659/1999 — Article 15 — Limitation period — Recovery
the European Parliament from holding office — Application
                                                                                of aid — Act interrupting the limitation period)
of national law — Action for annulment — Challengeable
                       act — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (2003/C 135/38)
                           (2003/C 135/37)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Case T-366/00, Scott SA, established in Saint-Cloud (France),
                                                                            represented by Sir Jeremy Lever QC, G. Peretz, Barrister, and
In Case T-353/00, Jean-Marie Le Pen, residing at Saint-Cloud                R. Griffith, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxem-
(France), represented by F. Wagner, lawyer, v European                      bourg, supported by French Republic (Agents: F. Million,
Parliament (Agents: H. Krück and C. Karamarcos), supported                  G. de Bergues and S. Seam), v Commission of the European
by French Republic (Agents: R. Abraham, G. de Bergues,                      Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and J. Flett): Application for
D. Colas and L. Bernheim): Application for annulment of the                 partial annulment of Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of
decision in the form of a declaration of the President of the               12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by France to Scott Paper
European Parliament of 23 October 2000 on the disqualifi-                   SA Kimberly-Clark (OJ 2002 L 12, p. 1), the Court of First
cation of the applicant from holding office as a Member of                  Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
the European Parliament, the Court of First Instance (Fifth                 of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas, P. Lindh,
Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-                    N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges; J. Palacio González,
Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal             Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                   on 10 April 2003, in which it:
10 April 2003, in which it:
                                                                            1.     Dismisses the application for annulment of Article 2 of
1.     Dismisses the application as inadmissible;                                  Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 in so far
                                                                                as it alleges that the Commission infringed Article 15 of
                                                                                Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999
                                                                                laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC];
2.     Orders the applicant to bear his own costs and to pay those of
       the Parliament in the main proceedings and in the proceedings
       on the application for interim relief;
                                                                            2.     Orders that the remainder of the proceedings be continued;
3.     Orders the French Republic bear its own costs.
                                                                            3.     Reserves the costs.
( 1) OJ C 28 of 27.01.2001.                                                 (1 ) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.


title: Removal from the register of C-317/96

text:
No C 181 /10         I EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14 . 6 . 97
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords,            4 . When must this legal test be applied to a measure
by order of that court of 13 March 1997, in the case of                     adopted by a Member State ? In particular at which of
Regina against Secretary of State for Employment, ex                        the following points in time, or at what other point in
         parte: Nicole Seymour-Smith and Laura Perez                        time, must it be applied to the measure :
                        ( Case C-167/97)                                    ( a ) when the measure is adopted;
                          ( 97/C 181/18 )                                   ( b ) when the measure is brought into force;
                                                                            (c ) when the employee is dismissed ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               5 . What are the legal conditions for establishing the
European Communities by an order of the House of Lords                      objective justification, for the purposes of indirect
of 13 March 1997, which was received at the Court                           discrimination under Article              119, of a measure
Registry on 2 May 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the                     adopted by a Member State in pursuance of its social
case of Regina against Secretary of State for Employment,                   policy ? In particular, what material need the Member
ex parte : Nicole Seymour-Smith and Laura Perez, on the                     State adduce in support of its grounds for
following questions :                                                       justification ?
1 . Does an award of compensation for breach of the                  (') Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
     right not to be unfairly dismissed under national                     implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
     legislation such as the Employment Protection                         and women as regards access to employment, vocational
     ( Consolidation ) Act 1978 constitute 'pay' within the                training and promotion, and working conditions ( OJ No L 39,
     meaning of Article 119 of the EC Treaty ?                             14 . 2 . 1976 , p. 40 ).
2 . If the answer to Question 1 is 'yes\ do the conditions
     determining whether a worker has the right not to be
     unfairly dismissed fall within the scope of Article 119                       Removal from the register of C-3 17/96 (')
     or that of Directive 76/207/EEC (')?                                                           ( 97/C 181 / 19 )
3 . What is the legal test for establishing whether a                By order of 29 January 1997 the President of the Court of
     measure adopted by a Member State has such a degree             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
     of disparate effect as between men an women as to               removal from the register of Case C-3 17/96 : Commission
     amount to indirect discrimination for the purposes of           of the European Communities v. Italian Republic .
     Article 119 of the EC Treaty unless shown to be based
     upon objectively justified factors other than sex ?             ( 1 ) OJ No C 336 , 9 . 11 . 1996 .
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            represented by Michel Aurillac, of the Paris Bar, with an
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                         of 9 April 1997                             Charles Duro, 4 Boulevard Royal, against the Commission
in Case T-47/95 : Terres Rouges Consultant SA and Others             of the European Communities ( Agents : Theofanis
       v. Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )               Christoforou, Yves Renouf and Gerard Berscheid ),
                                                                     supported by the Council of the European Union (Agents:
(Common organization of the markets — Bananas —                      Arthur Brautigam and Jiirgen Huber ), the Kingdom of
Import arrangements — Framework Agreement on                         Spain ( Agent: Rosario Silva de Lapuerta ) and the French
Bananas concluded as part of the Uruguay Round of                    Republic ( Agents : Catherine de Salins and Frederic Pascal )
multilateral trade negotiations — Regulation (EC)                    — application for annulment of Commission Regulation
No 3224/94 — Community transitional measures for the                 ( EC ) No 3224/94 of 21 December 1994 laying down
implementation of the Framework Agreement — Action                   transitional measures for the implementation of the
                for annulment — Inadmissibility)                     Framework Agreement on Bananas concluded as part of
                                                                     the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations ( OJ
                          ( 97/C 181/20 )                            No L 337, 1994, p. 72 ) — the Court of First Instance
                                                                     ( Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of:
                                                                     K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh, J. Azizi, J. D. Cooke and
                 (Language of the case: French)                      M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 April 1997, in which
                                                                     it :
In Case T-47/95 : Terres Rouges Consultant SA, established
in Paris, Cobana Import Sari, established in Rungis
( France ), SIPEF NV, established in Antwerp ( Belgium ),            1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible;


title: Case T-458/13: Action brought on 23 August 2013 — Larrañaga Otaño v OHIM (GRAPHENE)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/32

         Action brought on 23 August 2013 — Larrañaga Otaño v OHIM (GRAPHENE)
   (Case T-458/13)
   2013/C 313/60
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Joseba Larrañaga Otaño (San Sebastian, Spain) and Mikel Larrañaga Otaño (San Sebastian) (represented by F. Bueno Salamero, lawyer)

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

      Forms of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark applied for: Word mark ‘GRAPHENE’ for goods and services in Classes 13, 23, 25 and 38 — application for Community trade mark No 10 895 258.

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-10/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2011 — Birkhoff v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Child suffering from an infirmity preventing her from earning a livelihood — Refusal to extend payment of the allowance)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/51

      Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2011 — Birkhoff v Commission
      (Case T-10/11 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Family allowances - Dependent child allowance - Child suffering from an infirmity preventing her from earning a livelihood - Refusal to extend payment of the allowance)
      (2012/C 25/98)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Appellant: Gerhard Birkhoff (Weitnau, Germany) (represented by: C. Inzillo, lawyer)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggars, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

         Re:

      Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 27 October 2010 in Case F-60/09 Birkhoff v Commission (not yet published in the ECR), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 27 October 2010 in Case F-60/09 Birkhoff v Commission (not yet published in the ECR);

                  2.

                  Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

                  3.

                  Orders that the costs be reserved.

         (1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.


title: Case C-159/05: Action brought on 6 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/19

         Action brought on 6 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-159/05)
   (2005/C 132/35)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Maidani, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period allowed for transposition of the Directive into national law expired on 27 December 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 168, 27.06.2002, p. 43.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 3 May 2002 in Case T-177/01: Jégo-Quéré et Cie SA v Commission of the European Communities (Fisheries — Regulation (EC) No 1162/2001 — Recovery of the stock of hake — Fishing company — Action for annulment — Person individually concerned — Admissibility)

text:
C 169/30                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          13.7.2002
1.    Dismisses the application;                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    Orders each party to bear its own costs.
                                                                                30 April 2002
(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.00.                                                   In Joined Cases T-195/01 and T-207/01: Government of
                                                                            Gibraltar v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (State aid — Tax legislation — Existing aid or new aid —
                                                                           Initiation of the formal investigation procedure provided for
                                                                                in Article 88(2) EC)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                         (2002/C 169/53)
                            3 May 2002                                                        (Language of the case: English)
in Case T-177/01: Jégo-Quéré et Cie SA v Commission of
                 the European Communities (1)
                                                                           In Joined Cases T-195/01 and T-207/01, Government of
(Fisheries — Regulation (EC) No 1162/2001 — Recovery of                    Gibraltar, represented by A. Sutton and M. Llamas, Barristers,
the stock of hake — Fishing company — Action for                           and W. Schuster, lawyer, with an address for service in
annulment — Person individually concerned — Admissi-                       Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
                               bility)                                     (Agent: V. Di Bucci and R. Lyal), supported by Kingdom of
                                                                           Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta): Application for annulment
                                                                           of decisions SG(2001) D/289755 and SG(2001) D/289757 of
                          (2002/C 169/52)                                  the Commission of 11 July 2001 initiating the procedure
                                                                           provided for by Article 88(2) EC in respect of the Gibraltarian
                    (Language of the case: French)                         legislation on exempt companies and qualifying companies,
                                                                           the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Com-
                                                                           position), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili,
                                                                           J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers,
                                                                           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
In Case T-177/01, Jégo-Quéré et Cie SA, established at Lorient             30 April 2002, in which it:
(France), represented by A. Creus Carreras, B. Uriarte Valiente
and A. Agustinoy Guilayn, lawyers, v Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and A. Bordes):                  1.    In Case T-195/01:
Application for annulment of Articles 3(d) and 5 of Com-
mission Regulation (EC) No 1162/2001 of 14 June 2001
establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of hake in                   (a)  Annuls decision SG (2001) D/289755 of the Com-
ICES sub-areas III, IV, V, VI and VII and ICES divisions VIII a,                      mission of 11 July 2001 initiating the procedure laid
b, d, e and associated conditions for the control of activities of                    down in Article 88(2) EC in respect of the Gibraltar
fishing vessels (OJ 2001 L 159, p. 4), the Court of First                             exempt companies legislation;
Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
of: B. Vesterdorf, President, K. Lenaerts, J. Azizi, N.J. Forwood                (b) Orders the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
and H. Legal, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the                          Government of Gibraltar and to bear its own costs, with
Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 May 2002, in which it:                           the exception of the costs of the interlocutory proceedings
                                                                                in Case T-195/01 R, which shall be paid in their entirety
                                                                                by the Government of Gibraltar;
1.    Dismisses the objection of inadmissibility;
                                                                                (c)  Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs;
2.    Orders that the proceedings be continued in relation to the
      substance;
                                                                           2.    In Case T-207/01:
3.    Reserves the costs.
                                                                                (a)  Dismisses the application;
(1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.                                                      (b) Orders the Government of Gibraltar to pay the costs
                                                                                incurred by the Commission and to bear its own costs,
                                                                                including those incurred in the interlocutory proceedings
                                                                                in Case T-207/01 R;


title: Removal from the register of T-71/97

text:
No C 252/42          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  16 . 8 . 97
1996 ('), which held to be unlawful the rejection of the                   Removal from the register of T-17/97 R (')
complaint submitted by him against a decision which,                                          ( 97/C 252/87
although recognizing his entitlement to the allowance for
persons treated as dependent children in respect of the                            (Language of the case: Italian)
first of his two sons, withheld the right to that allowance
for his second son. After that judgment was notified to            By order of 30 June 1997 the President of the Court of
him, the applicant requested the relevant Director-General         First Instance of the European Communities has ordered
to extend the effect of that judgment to the years 1993 ,          the removal from the register of Case T-17/97 R:
1994 and 1995 . In its reply of 10 September 1996, the             Viglienzone Adriatica SpA v. Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities .
administrative authority granted that request only for the
period from 1 December 1992 to 30 November 1993 , on
                                                                   (') OJ No C 108 , 5 . 4 . 1997.
the ground that the judgment of 19 June could not be
regarded as implying that a second allowance should be
granted for periods after those covered by the annulled
decision. A subsequent request for review of that decision
was also rejected, by decision of 15 October 1996 .
                                                                           Removal from the register of T-39/97 R (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/88 )
Consequently, whilst the applicant seeks, by virtue of the
judgment, a new decision covering all the periods of time                        (Language of the case: German)
for which, in his opinion, he is entitled to an allowance          By order of 13 June 1997 the President of the Court of
for a person treated as a dependent child for both his             First Instance of the European Communities has ordered
sons, the Commission has granted him that right only for           the removal from the register of Case T-39/97 R: T.
the period of time expressly mentioned in the body of the          Port GmbH & Co. v. Commission of the European
annulling judgment. In the applicant's view, the                   Communities .
Commission is exploiting the alleged imprecision of the
judgment as regards the periods following 30 November              (') OJ No C 131 , 26 . 4 . 1997.
1993 in order to withhold a right which is lawfully vested
in him. He considers that the administrative authority is
thereby guilty of misuse of powers.
                                                                             Removal from the register of T-71/97 (')
The applicant considers that the judgment of 19 June
1996 is effective ex tunc and that the Commission should                                      ( 97/C 252/89
therefore review the case not only for the period to which                        (Language of the case: English)
the annulled decision relates but also for subsequent
periods .                                                          By order of 2 June 1997 the President of the Third
                                                                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
(') ECR-SC 1996 ] 11-909 .
                                                                   Case T-71/97: Monsanto Europe SA v. Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities.
                                                                   H OJ No C 181 , 14 . 6 . 1997.


               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/2

         Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Court
   (2007/C 269/04)
   At its meeting on 9 October 2007, the Court drew up the lists referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure for determining the composition of the Chambers of three Judges as follows:
   Fifth Chamber
   Mr Schintgen
   Mr Borg Barthet
   Mr Ilešič
   Mr Levits
   Sixth Chamber
   Sir Konrad Schiemann
   Mr Makarczyk
   Mr Kūris
   Mr Bonichot
   Ms Toader
   Seventh Chamber
   Mr Cunha Rodrigues
   Mr Klučka
   Mr Ó Caoimh
   Ms Lindh
   Mr Arabadjiev
   Eighth Chamber
   Ms Silva de Lapuerta
   Mr Juhász
   Mr Malenovský
   Mr von Danwitz


title: Case C-51/07: Order of the President of the Court of 15 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 15 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-51/07) (1)

   (2007/C 247/30)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Action brought on 14 November 1997 by AssiDöman Kraft Products AB and six other Swedish wood pulp companies against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-292/97)

text:
11.4.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 113/17
2. the applicants are ordered to pay the costs.                    requested the Commission to reimburse the fines paid by
                                                                   them. By letter of 4 October 1995, the Commission
(1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.                                            refused on the ground that the decision imposing the fines
(2) OJ L 95, 10.4.1997, p. 19.                                     was still standing with regard to the applicants. The
                                                                   applicants applied to the Court of First Instance for the
                                                                   annulment of the Commission's decision of refusal (1). By
                                                                   judgment of 10 July 1997 the Court of First Instance
                                                                   annulled that decision.
Action brought on 14 November 1997 by AssiDöman
                                                                   The applicants state that the Court of First Instance held
Kraft Products AB and six other Swedish wood pulp
                                                                   that, pursuant to Article 176 of the Treaty, the
companies against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Commission should have reviewed, in the light of the
                          Communities
                                                                   wood pulp judgment, the lawfulness of the wood pulp
                       (Case T-292/97)                             Decision in so far as it applies to the Swedish addressees
                         (98/C 113/42)                             and, if it concluded that there was no lawful basis for the
                                                                   fines imposed on them, it would be required, by virtue of
                                                                   the rule of law and pursuant to the principle of proper
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   administration, to repay the fines.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  By letter of 12 August 1997, the applicants called on the
Instance of the European Communities on 14 November                Commission to take a position on the obligations arising
1997 by AssiDöman Kraft Products AB and six other                  out of the judgment of 10 July 1997 within two months of
Swedish wood pulp companies, represented by John                   receipt of that letter. No response of any kind was
Pheasant, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and            received from the Commission.
Wales, of Lovell White Durrant, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Loesch & Wolter,
11 rue Goethe, Luxembourg.                                         The applicants maintain that the Commission, though
                                                                   called on to act, has failed to comply with the obligations
                                                                   arising out of the judgment of 10 July 1997, contrary to
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                   Article 176 of the Treaty and in defiance of the principle
                                                                   of proper administration and of the rule of law.
Ð declare, pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty, that,
    in breach of Article 176 of that Treaty, the
    Commission has failed to take the necessary measures           (1) Case T-227/95 (OJ C 64, 2.3.1996, p. 16).
    to comply with the Court's judgment of 10 July 1997,
Ð order, pursuant to Article 176 of the Treaty and
    without prejudice to the rights of the applicants under
    the second paragraph of Article 215 thereof, the
    Commission to take the necessary measures to comply            Action brought on 26 January 1998 by Amedeo Musso
    with the judgment of 10 July 1997,                                against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-23/98)
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (98/C 113/43)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicants, or their predecessors in title, were among
the addressees of Commission Decision 85/202/EEC of
19 December 1984 relating to a proceeding pursuant to              An action against the Commission of the European
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/29.725 Ð Wood pulp) by             Communities was brought before the Court of First
which the Commission imposed fines on 43 of the                    Instance of the European Communities on 26 January
addressees of the Decision. The applicants, who had never          1998 by Amedeo Musso, represented by Vincenzo Cinque
accepted the allegations of infringement, did not bring an         and Luciana Candriella, of the Udine Bar, 34 via
action for annulment of the Decision and paid the fines to         Morpurgo, Udine.
the Commission. On application by other addressees of
the Decision, the Court of Justice, by judgment of
31 March 1993 in Joined Cases C-89/85, C-104/85,                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
C-114/85, C-116/85, C-117/85 and C-125/85 to C-129/
85, A. Ahlström Oy v. Commission, annulled, inter alia,            Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
two of the key findings of infringement with the result                 30 July 1997,
that the Commission was required to repay to the
producers who had been parties to those proceedings the
fines imposed on the basis of those findings of                    Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
infringement. Pursuant to that judgment, the applicants                 inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover