title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 26 November 1996 in Case T-167/95: Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v. Council of the European Union (Action for declaration of failure to act - Former officials - Social security - Admissibility)

text:
No C 54/20             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 22 . 2 . 97
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             — application for a declaration that the European
                         (Third Chamber )                             Parliament has failed, in breach of Article 175 of the EC
                                                                      Treaty, to propose to the competent institutions of the
                      of 15 January 1997                              European Union amendments to the Staff Regulations of
in Case T-77/95 : Syndicat Français de l'Express                      Officials which would have enabled the applicant to
International and Others v. Commission of the European                remain covered by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme —
                          Communities (')                             the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of:
                                                                      A. Saggio, President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura
(Competition — Action for annulment — Rejection of a                  Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
              complaint — Community interest)                         26 November 1996 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                      follows :
                           ( 97/C 54/31 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                       1.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-77/95 : Syndicat Français de l'Express                      2 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
International, established in Roissy-en-France, France,
DHL International , established in Roissy-en-France,
Service CRIE , established in Paris , and May Courier,                (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
established in Paris, represented by Eric Morgan de
Rivery, of the Paris Bar, and Jacques Derenne, of the
Brussels and Paris Bars, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 avenue
Guillaume v. Commission of the European Communities
( Agents : originally Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz and                  ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Jean-Francis Pasquier, and subsequently Richard Lyal and
Jean-Francis Pasquier ) — application for annulment of                                      of 26 November 1996
Commission Decision SG ( 94 ) D/ 19144 of 30 December                 in Case T-167/95 : Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v. Council of
1994 rejecting the complaint of 21 December 1990 by                                        the European Union (')
Syndicat Français de l'Express International — the Court
of First Instance ( Third Chamber ), composed of: B.                  (Action for declaration of failure to act — Former officials
Vesterdorf, President, C. P. Briët and A. Potocki , Judges; J.                      — Social security — Admissibility)
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                                            ( 97/C 54/33 )
given a judgment on 15 January 1997, in which it:
 1 . Dismisses the application.                                                      (Language of the case: German)
2 . Orders the applicants to pay the costs.                           In Case T-167/95 : Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter, the divorced
                                                                      spouse of a former official of the European Parliament,
(') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .                                       residing at Kehlen ( Luxembourg ), represented by Dieter
                                                                      Rogalla , Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhövel , with an address for
                                                                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Armin
                                                                      Machmer, 1 rue Roger Barthel , Bereldange, v. Council of
                                                                      the European Union ( Agents : Diego Canga Fano and Jan
                                                                      Peter Hix ) — application for a declaration that the
                                                                      Council has failed, in breach of Article 175 of the EC
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      Treaty, to propose to the competent institutions of the
                     of 26 November 1996                              European Union amendments to the Staff Regulations of
                                                                      Officials which would have enabled the applicant to
in Case T- 164/95 : Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v. European
                                                                      remain covered by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme —
                           Parliament (')
                                                                      the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of:
 (Action for declaration of failure to act — Former officials         A. Saggio, President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura
              — Social security — Admissibility)                      Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                            ( 97/C 54/32 )
                                                                      26 November 1996 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                      follows :
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       1.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-164/95 : Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter, the divorced
spouse of a former official of the European Parliament,               2 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
residing at Kehlen ( Luxembourg), represented by Dieter
Rogalla , Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhövel, with an address for               (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Armin
Machmer, 1 rue Roger Barthel , Bereldange, v. European
Parliament ( Agents : Christian Pennera and Hans Krück )


title: Action brought on 6 March 1995 by NMB France Sàrl, NMB-Minebea-GmbH, NMB (UK) Ltd and NMB Italia Srl against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-78/95)

text:
 13 . 5 . 95        [ EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 119/27
Action brought on 24 February 1995 by Estabelecimentos              Action brought on 3 March 1995 by Heinz-Josef Keimes
Isidoro M. Oliveira, SA, Sociedade Comercial, against the           against the Council of the European Union and the
          Commission of the European Communities                             Commission of the European Communities
                         Case T-73/95 )                                                      (Case T-76/95 )
                          95/C 119/51 )                                                        ( 95/C 119/52 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                    An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                    the Commission of the European Communities was brought
An action against the Commission of the European                    before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Communities on 3 March 1995 by Heinz-Josef Keimes,
Instance of the European Communities on 24 February                 Heinsberg-Dremmen ( Federal Republik of Germany),
 1995 by Estabelecimentos Isidoro M. Oliveira, SA,                  represented by Dr Lukanow, Rechtsanwalt, Euskirchen,
Sociedade Comercial, whose registered office is in Avenida          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
de Olivença, Montijo, Portugal, represented by Dr Joaquim           of Dupong & Associés, 14a , Rue des Bains .
Marques de Ascensâo, of the Lisbon Bar, whose Chambers
are in Av. Eng. Duarte Pacheco — Amoreiras, Torre 2 ,               The applicant claims that the Court should :
 1 0-S 1,1000 Lisbon, with an address for service at the Uniâo
de Bancos Portugueses SA, c/o Sr Alberto de Sousa, 12, rue          order the defendants to pay to the applicant compensation
de la Grève, 1643 Luxembourg.                                       for the period of five milk years from 1 April 1988 in the
                                                                    amount of DM 58 937,01 , together with 8% interest
                                                                    thereon from 17 December 1983 .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
annul in part the Decision of the Commission relating to file       The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
No 870708/P1 , notified on 28 December 1994 .                       Case T-20/94 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, a Portuguese commercial company, which
had organized and conducted, on the basis of a project              Action brought on 6 March 1995 by NMB France Sàrl,
                                                                    NMB-Minebea-GmbH, NMB (UK) Ltd and NMB Italia Sri
submitted in 1986 , a professional training programme,
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
challenges the Commission's refusal to declare eligible for
the purposes of the European Social Fund certain                                             ( Case T-78/95 )
expenditure relating to that programme .                                                        95/C 119/53
It points out that, by Decision of 27 June 1989 , the                               (Language of the case: English)
defendant institution had already held to be ineligible part
of the amount designated for financing the programme and            An action against the Commission of the European
that that Decision was annulled by judgment of the Court of         Communities was brought before the Court of First
Justice of 7 May 1991 in Case C-304/89 .                            Instance of the European Communities on 6 March 1 995 by
                                                                   NMB France Sàrl, NMB-Minebea-GmbH, NMB (UK) Ltd
                                                                    and NMB Italia Sri, represented by Ian S. Forrester and
However, eight years after the submission of the project,          Aristotelis Kaplanidis, with an address for service in
seven years after the execution of the training programme          Luxembourg at the Chambers of Maître Marc Loesch,
and four years after the judgment of the Court of Justice           8 Rue Goethe, 1011 Luxembourg.
annulling the Commission's Decision of 27 June 1989, the
Commission has now adopted a new Decision, even more
severe for the financial point of view, than that annulled by      The appliclants claim that the Court should:
the Court of Justice.                                               1 , annul Commission Decision 94/95 1 /EC in so far as it
                                                                         denies to the applicants partial refunds of anti-dumping
In so doing, the defendant has infringed the principle which             duties collected in 1992 on imports of ball bearings from
prohibits a reformatio in peius. Similarly, it has infringed the         Thailand, on the basis that the said anti-dumping duties
principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate           should be treated as a cost to be deducted in determining
expectation, and also the criterion of a 'reasonable                     export price, declaring Article 2 ( 8 ) ( b ) (ii ) of Regulation
period'.                                                                 (EEC ) No 2423/88 inapplicable under Article 184 of the
                                                                         EC Treaty to the extent necessary for the purpose;
                                                                   2 , take such further or other steps as justice may
                                                                         require;
 ---pagebreak--- No C 119/28           IENI                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13 . 5 . 95
3 , order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs in the           Action brought on 7 March 1995 by Société Nationale des
      present proceedings.                                             Chemins de Fer Français (SNCF) against the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
                                                                                <Case T-79/95 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                            ( 95/C 119/54 )
The applicants contend that it is improper and illegal for the                        (Language of the case: Frertch)
Commission, in determining whether or not to grant
requests for refunds of anti-dumping duties by importers
associated with exporters, to include the anti-dumping duty            An action against the Commission of the European
whose refund is sought in the costs deducted from the resale           Communities was brought before the Court of First
price for the purpose of arriving at a reconstructed export            Instance of the European Communities on 7 March 1995 by
price, for the following reasons:                                      Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français ( SNCF), a
                                                                       French public undertaking whose registered office is in
                                                                       Paris ( France ), represented by Barbara Rapp-Jung,
(a ) Applying this rule is illegal because it leads to the             Rechtsanwàltin, Frankfurt am Main, and Nathalie Flandin,
       finding of a dumping margin where in reality none               of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
       exists, or to the finding of a higher margin than that          Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor Elvinger, 31 Rue
       which exists, with the result that refunds of those duties      d'Eich.
       which should be granted are not granted, or are granted
       in an amount less than that which should be
       granted.                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       1 , annul the Commission Decision of 13 December 1994
(b ) This infringes the principles of proportionality, in that
       it imposes an excessive burden on th importers by                   relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
       causing them to bear the anti-dumping duty in an                    Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement ( IV/32.490
       amount which is greater than what is necessary to fulfil            — Eurotunnel );
       the legitimate objective of eliminating dumping with
       respect to the imports in question.                             2, in the alternative, annul the Decision in so far as
                                                                           conditions are attached to it (Article 2 A);
(c) It brings about discrimination between associated and
       independent importers.                                          3 , order the defendant to pay' the costs .
( d ) Application of the rule constitutes a breach of the              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       EC's obligations under the GATT and the GATT
       anti-dumping code to levy anti-dumping duties only in           The applicant states that on 29 July 1987 a usage contract
       the amount necessary to offset or prevent dumping and           for the use of the fixed link (the Tunnel) between the United
       to refund duties paid on a given importation if the             Kingdom and France was concluded by the concessionaires
       amount of such duties exceeds the amount of the                 for the Tunnel ( France Manche SA and Channel Tunnel
       dumping for such importation.                                   Group Ltd ) of the first part and Société Nationale des
                                                                       Chemins de Fer Français and British Railways Board (BR) of
                                                                       the second part; the subject-matter of the contract consists
(e) The Commission's implementation from 1 January                     essentially of an agreement between the concessionaires and
       1995 of a different rule whereby full refunds are               SNCF and BR on the allocation of paths to SNCF and BR.
       granted to related importers upon the making of a               The contract was notified to the Commission in order to
       'single jump' demonstrates that the insurmountability           obtain a declaration of non-applicability of the prohibition
       of the obstacles invoked by the Commission to justify           in Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1017/68 . The
       its previous policy was unfounded.                              Commission decided to exempt the contract for a period of
                                                                       30 years; it attached to the exemption, however, conditions
                                                                       to be borne by SNCF and BR alone and obligations for all
The applicants maintain that the provisions of Article 2(8 )           the parties to the contract.
( b) of Regulation (EEC ) No 2423/88 are inapplicable under
Article 184 of the Treaty in so far as they require                    The applicant challenges the Decision, raising the following
anti-dumping duties paid to be included in the costs                   pleas in law:
deducted from the resale price to customers for the purpose
of calculating export price. They therefore ask the Court to
annul the contested Decision in so far as it denied refunds as          I. Breach of essential procedural requirements
a result of applying such provisions.
                                                                            1 . Infringement of the regulations applying the
                                                                                competition rules: the applicant considers that,
                                                                                contrary to the Commission's view, Regulation
                                                                                No 17 is not applicable to the usage contract.


title: Case T-153/99: Action brought on 22 June 1999 by Luciano Simonella against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 246/44                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.8.1999
Action brought on 22 June 1999 by Luciano Simonella                       Action brought on 28 June 1999 by Nordisk Færgefart
  against the Commission of the European Communities                             A/S against the Council of the European Union
                          (Case T-153/99)                                                            (Case T-156/99)
                          (1999/C 246/86)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/87)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 June 1999 by Luciano Simonel-                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
la, residing at Howald, Luxembourg, represented by Rosario                brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Grasso, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in             Communities on 28 June 1999 by Nordisk Færgefart A/S,
Luxembourg at the latter’s Chambers, 35 Rue Notre-Dame.                   Faaborg (Denmark), represented by Ulrich Schrömbges, Klaus
                                                                          Landry and Lothar Harings, of Graf von Westphalen, Fritze &
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Modest, Hamburg, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                          at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias
— annul the decision impliedly rejecting the applicant’s                  Hardt.
     complaint registered on 25 November 1998 under No
     682/98;                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of BF                 1. Set aside Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February
     2 000 000 by way of compensation for material and                        1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to
     non-material damage suffered;                                            excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring
— order the Commission to pay all expenses and costs                          of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1), as amended by
     claimed by the applicant in the addendum of 11 September                 Council Directive 92/108/EEC (OJ 1992 L 390, p. 124),
     1998 which is deemed to supplement his complaint No                      Council Directive 94/74/EC (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 46), and
     586/98 of 6 August 1998, being an integral part of                       Council Directive 96/99/EC (OJ 1997 L 8, p. 12),
     the present complaint, those expenses and costs being
     quantified at LIT 150 000 000;                                           (a) in so far as it limits the arrangement in Article 28 [of
                                                                                the directive] to 30 June 1999,
— order the Commission to pay all expenses and costs
     incurred in these proceedings.                                                 or, in the alternative,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               (b) in so far as it results in trace barriers, contrary to the
                                                                                Treaty, in intra-Community sea-crossings as defined in
                                                                                Article 28;
The applicant contests the refusal of the appointing authority
to promote him to grade B 1 for the year 1996, or 1997 at
the latest.                                                               2. Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
In support of his claims he primarily argues that the Com-
mission has infringed:                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments
— Article 26 of the Staff Regulations in so far as his personnel          The applicant operates two ferry routes between Germany and
     file was not complete at the time when the appointing                Denmark which carry passengers and vehicles and offer on
     authority had to assess his merits. Moreover, the proposal           board tax-free goods for sale. A subsidiary also operates a
     that he be promoted had not been placed in the file.                 supermarket, in which ferry passengers can purchase domestic
                                                                          German products and in which bookings are made for holiday
— Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, in that he had not                 homes and short holiday breaks. The applicant announced
     received the 1990-93, 1993-95 or 1995-97 staff reports
                                                                          that both routes would cease to operate on 1 July 1999 and
     in good time, and had thus been denied an opportunity to
                                                                          that all employees would be dismissed, on the ground that a
     submit observations which he might have considered                   positive economic result could be achieved only through
     useful for the purposes of being promoted. He also stases            inclusion of the special arrangement (sale of tax-free goods on
     that since 15 June 1998 (the applicant reserves the right            board) in force until 30 June 1999.
     to specify the exact date) the 1995-97 staff report appears
     still to be pending for no valid reason.
                                                                          So far as the admissibility of its action is concerned, the
— Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, in that the comparative            applicant submits that, after lengthy discussions between the
     examination of the merits of the candidates for promotion            Member States, it was not until the ‘Cologne Summit’ on 3
     (provided for thereunder) was not carried out in the present         and 4 June 1999 that it became clear that the ‘tax-free
     case. The applicant maintains that it was decided at the             arrangement’ would not be extended. It was only then that
     inter-departmental meeting of 27 October 1994 that he                the directive became challengeable by the applicant, which,
     should be promoted during the 1996 promotions exercise,              moreover, considers itself to be directly and individually
     or, at the latest, during 1997.                                      concerned thereby. For that reason, the period for bringing an
                                                                          action ought to have begun to run on 5 June 1999 at the
                                                                          earliest.


C 219/12               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 14.9.2002
        Removal from the register of Case C-144/01 ( 1)              register of Case C-279/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
                        (2002/C 219/23)
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
By order of 4 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-144/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-365/01 ( 1)
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
                                                                                (2002/C 219/27)
                                                                     By order of 5 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
        Removal from the register of Case  C-247/01 ( 1)             register of Case C-365/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Ireland.
                        (2002/C 219/24)
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
By order of 20 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-247/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.                                                  Removal from the register of Case C-391/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 219/28)
                                                                     By order of 27 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
        Removal from the register of Case  C-258/01 ( 1)             of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                     register of Case C-391/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Portuguese Republic.
                        (2002/C 219/25)
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
By order of 14 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-258/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Portuguese Republic.
( 1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-412/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 219/29)
                                                                     By order of 7 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
        Removal from the register of Case C-279/01 ( 1)              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                     register of Case C-412/01: Commission of the European
                        (2002/C 219/26)                              Communities v Italian Republic.
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
By order of 20 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the


title: Action brought on 16 January 1995 by the Amicale des Résidents du Square d'Auvergne against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-5/95)

text:
4 . 3 . 95            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 54/1 9
2. join the present action to that already pending in Case          — order the Community to pay the applicant ECU 10
     T-77/93 Hulseberg and Others v. Council and                        million by way of damages and to pay the costs,
      Commission and also stay the proceedings.
                                                                    — grant interim relief regardless of the proceedings and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         without requiring a guarantee.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case T-20/94 .                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                    The applicant contests the Commission's decision to
                                                                    proceed no further with its complaint concerning the
                                                                    infringement of the Community rules on competition by the
Action brought on 16 January 1995 by the Amicale des                undertakings possessing the sole operating franchise in
Residents du Square d'Auvergne against Commission of the            respect of the district heating system for Massy-Antony.
                    European Communities
                         (Case T-5/95 )                             The applicant claims first of all that, in taking the decision to
                                                                    proceed no further on the ground of the alleged lack of a
                          ( 95/C 54/36 )
                                                                    Community interest, the Commission made a manifest error
                                                                    of assessment of the facts of the case.
               (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European                    Secondly, the undertakings in question have participated in
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   agreements and concerted practices which have as their
Instance of the European Communities on 16 January 1995             object the restriction or distortion of competition in a
by the Amicale des Residents du Square d'Auvergne, whose            substantial part of the common market, increasing by a
headquarters are in Massy ( France ), represented by                disproportionate amount the costs to be borne by the
                                                                    tenants .
Jean-Marc Florand and Karim Achoui, of the Paris Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance               Lastly, the Commission's inaction is ground for a
should :                                                            declaration that Article 155 of the Treaty has also been
                                                                    infringed.
— declare that the Commission has exceeded its powers
     and that it has failed to act,
— declare void the declaratory decisions (D/09735 and
     D/10419 ) issued by Directorate-General IV
     ( Competition ) on 20 September 1994 and 5 October
     1994 respectively and the declaratory decision ( SPC/D               Removal from the register of Case T-45/92 ( a )
     03463 ) issued by the Consumer Policy Service on
     26 October 1994,                                                                         ( 95/C 54/37)
— order the Commission to take further steps — in strict                          (Language of the case: French)
     compliance with the guidelines laid down by the Court
     of First Instance in Automec v. Commission ( Case
     T-24/90 [ 1992] ECR 11-2223 ) and other judgments              By order of 4 January 1995 the President of the Third
     contributing to that branch of case-law — for the              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
     thorough investigation of the grounds set out in the           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
     original complaint of 25 July 1994 submitted by the            T-45/92: Loek Rijnoudt v. Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities .
     applicant against the French State, SIMACUR, HLM
     Residences le Logement des Fonctionnaires, CURMA
     and UFINER-COFRETH,                                            (!) OJ No C 182 , 18 . 7. 1992 .


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-190/95 and T-45/96, Société de Distribution de Mécaniques et d'Automobiles (Sodima) v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Distribution of motor-vehicles — Examination of complaints — Action for declaration for failure to act, for annulment and for compensation — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 102/18                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.4.2000
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 4. Orders the applicant to bear the costs of Case T-190/95. Each
                                                                                of the parties is ordered to bear its own costs relating to Case
                                                                                T-45/96.
                         of 13 December 1999
                                                                            (1) OJ C 333, 9.12.1995 and C 145, 18.5.1996.
in Joined Cases T-190/95 and T-45/96, Société de Distri-
bution de Mécaniques et d’Automobiles (Sodima) v Com-
           mission of the European Communities (1)
(Competition — Distribution of motor-vehicles — Examin-                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ation of complaints — Action for declaration for failure to
act, for annulment and for compensation — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                of 13 December 1999
                            (2000/C 102/35)                                 in Joined Cases T-9/96 and T-211/96, Européenne Auto-
                                                                            mobile SARL v Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties (1)
                                                                            (Competition — Distribution of motor-vehicles — Examin-
                      (Language of the case: French)                        ation of complaints — Action for a declaration of failure to
                                                                                act, for annulment and for compensation)
In Joined Cases T-190/95 and T-45/95: Société de Distribution                                         (2000/C 102/36)
de Mécaniques et d’Automobiles (Sodima), established in Istres,
France, represented by Dominique Rafoni, liquidator and
Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for                                     (Language of the case: French)
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4
Rue Béatrix de Bourbon, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: initially Giuliano Marenco and Guy                     In Joined Cases T-9/96 and T-211/96, Européenne Automobile
Charrier, then Giuliano Marenco and Loïc Guérin) — Appli-                   SARL, established in Carcassonne, France, represented by
cation for, first, a declaration that the Commission unlawfully             Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar with an address for
failed to define its position following a complaint by the                  service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz,
applicant under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81                 4 Rue Béatrix Bourbon, v Commission of the European
EC) and under Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of                      Communities (Agents: initially Giuliano Marenco and Guy
12 December 1984 on the application of Article 85(3) of the                 Charrier, then Giuliano Marenco and Loïc Guérin) — Appli-
EEC Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution              cation for annulment of the Commission Decision of 9 Octob-
and servicing agreements (OJ 1985 L 15, p. 16); secondly,                   er 1996 dismissing a complaint by the applicant under Article
annulment of an alleged implied refusal to notify the facts of              85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) and for compensation
the case to the applicant; thirdly, annulment of an alleged                 for damage — The Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
implied decision to join the applicant’s complaint with other               composed of B. Vesterdorf, President and J. Pirrung and
complaints; and, fourthly, compensation for damage — The                    M. Vilaras, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Ves-                has given a judgment on 13 December 1999, in which it:
terdorf, President and J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 December 1999, in                     1. Dismisses the application in Case T-211/96;
which it:
                                                                            2. Orders the applicant to bear the costs of Case T-211/96;
1. Dismisses the application in Case T-190/95 as inadmissible;              3. Orders Case T-9/96 to be struck off the register;
                                                                            4. Orders the Commission to bear the costs of Case T-9/96.
2. Rules that there is no further need to decide on the application
     for failure to act in Case T-45/96;
                                                                            (1) OJ C 95, 30.3.1996 and C 54, 22.2.1997.
3. Dismisses the remainder of the application in Case T-45/96 as
     inadmissible.


title: Case C-356/99: Action brought on 23 September 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against Hitesys SpA

text:
C 6/8                     EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8.1.2000
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the       2. Articles 73b(1) and 73d(1)(b) of the Treaty preclude a provision
    laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                  of national law such as the first sentence of the fourth
    comply with Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November                       subparagraph of Article 33 Tarifpost 8 of the Gebührengesetz.
    1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights
    related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, Ireland
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.               (1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
(1) OJ No C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                                                                             Action brought on 23 September 1999 by the Com-
                                                                             mission of the European Communities against Hitesys
                                                                                SpA
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Case C-356/99)
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (2000/C 6/16)
                         of 14 October 1999
                                                                             An action against Hitesys SpA, whose registered office is in
in Case C-439/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    Aprilia, Latina (Italy), was brought before the Court of Justice
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Sandoz GmbH v Finanzlan-                        of the European Communities on 23 September 1999 by the
desdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgen-                          Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                  land (1)                                   Eugenio de March, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, and Mr Dal
                                                                             Ferro, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                             Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
(Loan agreements — Stamp duty — Rules governing impo-                        Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                     sition — Discrimination)
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                              (2000/C 6/15)
                                                                             1. Order Hitesys SpA, the defendant company, to repay EUR
                                                                                132 500 by way of principal amount and EUR 61 032,8
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                by way of interest at 8,25 %, for the period running from
                                                                                8 January 1994 to 8 September 1999, totalling EUR
                                                                                194 443,7, to which must be added EUR 30 364 in default
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                interest in respect of each additional day of delay until full
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                payment is made with respect to the financing under
                                                                                contract No JOU2-CT93-0417;
In Case C-439/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Verwaltungsgerichts-               2. order Hitesys to pay the costs.
hof, Austria, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Sandoz GmbH v Finanzlan-
desdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland — on
the interpretation of Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty                  Pleas and main arguments
(now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC), and of Articles 1 and 4
of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the                      The action, brought under an arbitration clause, seeks the
implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (OJ 1988 L 178,                   repayment of monies advanced in view of contract No
p. 5) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen,                JOU2-CT93-0417 for a research project in the field of the
President of the Second Chamber, acting as President of the                  non-nuclear energy-Joule II (1991-1994) programme adopted
Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch,                    by the Council of Ministers of the European Union (1). The
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                     Commission decided to terminate the contract, governed by
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             Italian law, on the ground of breach of contract by the
on 14 October 1999, in which it held that:                                   defendant.
1. Articles 73b(1) and 73d(1)(b) and (3) of the EC Treaty [now
    Articles 56(1) EC and 58(1)(b) and (3) EC] are to be interpreted         (1) Council Decision 91/484/EEC of 9 September 1991 (OJ 1991
    as not precluding the imposition of duty, under a national                   L 257, p. 37).
    provision such as the first subparagraph of Article 33 Tarifpost
    8 of the Gebührengesetz, on loans contracted in another Member
    State.


title: Case C-166/03: Action brought on 10 April 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
7.6.2003                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 135/19
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                            tion into groundwater of substances in list II of Directive
Ordinario di Milano by order of that Court of 21 February                      80/68/EEC so as to avoid pollution of that water by these
2003 in the case of Azienda Agricola (farm) owned by                           substances, by not subjecting to prior investigation any
Andrea Balconi (ex Guido) against Region of Lombardy                           disposal or tipping for the purpose of disposal of the
        and AGEA (Agency for Agricultural subsidies)                           dangerous substances in list I of Directive 80/68/EEC,
                                                                               which might lead to indirect discharge, and by not
                                                                               subjecting to prior investigation all direct discharge of
                          (Case C-162/03)                                      substances in list II of Directive 80/68/EEC and the
                                                                               disposal or tipping for the purpose of disposal of those
                                                                               substances which might lead to indirect discharge, the
                          (2003/C 135/27)
                                                                               Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                               Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Directive 80/68/EEC of
                                                                               17 December 1979 ( 1) on the protection of groundwater
                                                                               against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Ordinario di
                                                                         —     declare that, by failing to failing to take the necessary
Milano (Milan District Court) of 21 February 2003, received at
                                                                               measures to record and identify hazardous waste in the
the Court Registry on 7 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                               Thriasio Pedio area, where tipping (discharge) of such
in the case of Azienda Agricola (farm) owned by Andrea
                                                                               waste takes place, and, by failing to draw up, either
Balconi (ex Guido) against Region of Lombardy and AGEA
                                                                               separately or in the framework of their general waste
(Agency for Agricultural subsidies) on the following question:
                                                                               management plans, plans for the management of hazard-
                                                                               ous waste in the Thriasio Pedio area, the Hellenic Republic
Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1) of 31 March                   has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) and
1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 (2) of                       6(1) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December
28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the                            1991 on hazardous waste ( 2);
additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of
an administrative penalty with the result that producers are
liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been               —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?
( 1) OJ L 90 of 01.04.1984, p. 10.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
( 2) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
                                                                         —     Infringement of Directive 80/68/EEC
                                                                         —     Infringement of Directive 91/689/EEC.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43.
Action brought on 8 April 2003 by the Commission of                      (2 ) OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20.
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                          (Case C-163/03)
                          (2003/C 135/28)
                                                                         Action brought on 10 April 2003 by the Commission of
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before                the European Communities against the French Republic
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by V. Jordana and M. Konstantinidis, of its Legal                                      (Case C-166/03)
Service.
                                                                                (2003/C 135/29)
The Commission claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing to take the necessary steps to
      prevent the introduction into groundwater of substances            An action against the French Republic was brought before the
      in list I of Directive 80/68/EEC and to limit the introduc-        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 April
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/20               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            7.6.2003
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                              27 August 1997, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
represented by B. Stromsky, acting as Agent.                                     its obligations under Articles 10 and 249 EC and
                                                                                Article 4(1)(b) of Council Directive 89/655/EEC ( 1) of
                                                                                30 November 1989, amended by Directive 95/63/EC (2)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      of 5 December 1995 Council Directive 95/63/EC of
                                                                                5 December 1995 amending Directive 89/655/EEC con-
—     Declare that, by reserving the term ‘gold’ to items stamped                cerning the minimum safety and health requirements for
      as being of a fineness of 750/000 parts of gold while                      the use of work equipment by workers at work.
      items stamped with a fineness of 375 or 585/000 parts
      of gold are to be termed ‘gold alloy’, the French Republic          2.     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC of
      the EC Treaty
—     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Article 1(1) of the Disposición Transitoria Única of the royal
                                                                          decree grants a period of 12 months from the entry into force
The requirement at issue prohibits the marketing under the                thereof for any equipment already in use in undertakings to be
name of ‘gold’ of items containing 585 or 375 thousandths                 brought into conformity with the requirements set down in
parts of gold which may be termed such in their Member State              Annex I thereto (which corresponds to Annex I to the
of origin, thus rendering marketing of such items more                    directive). Since the royal decree entered into force on
difficult.                                                                27 August 1997, that period allowed Spanish businesses a
                                                                          transitional period which is much longer than that provided
                                                                          for in Article 4(1)(b) of the directive.
That prohibition cannot be justified by the requirements of
consumer protection and fair trading, since adequate labelling
is sufficient.
                                                                          Articles 1(2), (3) and (4) of the Disposición Transitoria Única
                                                                          provide that, when for specific objective reasons it is impossible
                                                                          in certain sectors for work equipment to be brought into
                                                                          conformity within the 12-month period, the employment
                                                                          authorities, upon the reasoned request of the most representa-
                                                                          tive associations of employers in the sector and after consulting
                                                                          the most representative unions in that sector, may exception-
                                                                          ally authorise a plan to bring work equipment into conformity
Action brought on 11 April 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                          with Annex I to the royal decree (which corresponds to
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                          Annex I to the directive) of a duration not greater than
                                                                          five years having regard to the seriousness, importance and
                         (Case C-168/03)                                  significance of the objective circumstances relied on. Appli-
                                                                          cations for approval of such a plan were to be submitted, in
                                                                          accordance with that provision, within nine months from the
                         (2003/C 135/30)                                  entry into force of the royal decree (that is to say, by 27 June
                                                                          1998), and the competent employment authority was to take
                                                                          a decision thereon within the ensuing three months.
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 April
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       The Commission takes the view that that additional transitional
represented by Isabel Martínez del Peral, of it Legal Service,            period is incompatible with the requirements of Article 4(1)(b)
acting as Agent.                                                          of the directive and is entirely unjustified.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               (1 ) Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning
                                                                               the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work
1.    Declare that, by providing in Article 1 of the Disposición               equipment by workers at work (second individual Directive within
      Transitoria Única (single transitional provision) of Real                the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC — OJ
      Decreto (Royal Decree) No 1215/1997 of 18 July 1997,                     1989 L 393, p. 13.
      laying down minimum health and safety requirements                  (2 ) Council Directive — OJ 1995 L 335, p. 28.
      for the use of work equipment by workers, an additional
      adjustment period for work equipment already available
      to workers at the undertaking and/or plant prior to


title: Case C-357/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo by order of that Court of 3 July 2002 in the appeal brought by Fazenda Pública against Sonae Distribução SGPS, SA

text:
23.11.2002             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 289/17
Action brought on 2 October 2002 by the Commission of                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                 Travail de Nivelles, Section de Nivelles — 2ème Chambre
                                                                       by judgment of that Court of 24 September 2002 in
                                                                       the case of Anne Hennecart against Office National de
                                                                                l’Emploi
                         (Case C-352/02)
                                                                                (Case C-356/02)
                         (2002/C 289/28)
                                                                                (2002/C 289/29)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before             European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du Travail
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 Octo-            de Nivelles, Section de Nivelles — 2ème Chambre (Labour
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                Court of Nivelles, Nivelles Section — 2nd Chamber) (Belgium)
represented by Minas Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.             of 24 September 2002, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                       3 October 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Anne
                                                                       Hennecart against Office National de l’Emploi on the following
                                                                       question:
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                       Does Community law — and more particularly the principles
                                                                       of citizenship and of freedom of movement of citizens
—     declare that, by failing to adopt, and in any event to           provided for by Articles [17] and 18 of the EC Treaty —
      communicate, the laws, regulations and administrative            preclude the accrual and continuation of entitlement to a
      provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/14/           social security benefit conferred by a Member State, the
      EC ( 1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of         recipient not being required to remain available on the
      8 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the               employment market of that State, being made subject to a
      Member States relating to the noise emission in the              condition of residence or habitual residence within that State?
      environment by equipment for use outdoors, the Hellenic
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      directive;
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
                                                                       Tribunal Administrativo by order of that Court of 3 July
                                                                       2002 in the appeal brought by Fazenda Pública against
                                                                                Sonae Distribução SGPS, SA
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-357/02)
The Member States are required by the binding character of
                                                                                (2002/C 289/30)
the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and Article 10 EC to
adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into national
law before the expiry of the time-limit laid down for that
purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
the Commission. That time-limit expired on 3 July 2001                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
without the Hellenic Republic having notified to the Com-              European Communities by order of the Supremo Tribunal
mission the provisions transposing the directive in question           Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Tribunal) of 3 July
into national law.                                                     2002, received at the Court Registry on 3 October 2002, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Fazenda Pública
                                                                       against Sonae Distribução SGPS, SA on the following question:
( 1) OJ L 162 of 3.7.2000, p. 1.                                       Are Articles 1 and 2 of Order No 904/95 of 18 July 1995 and
                                                                       Article 408(1) of the Código do Mercado de Valores Mobiliá-
                                                                       rios (approved by Decreto-lei No 142-A/91 of 10 April 1991,
                                                                       in the version in force at the material time rather than the later
                                                                       version approved by Decreto-lei No 486/99 of 13 November
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/18                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.11.2002
1999), compatible with Articles 11 and 12 of Directive 69/                   It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
335/EEC ( 1), in so far as they provide for a charge, payable to             measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
the Comissão do Mercado de Valores Mobiliários, for over-
the-counter transactions involving securities which varies
according to the value of the transaction without upper limits?              The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
                                                                             has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
                                                                             ation of the directive into Greek law.
( 1) Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
     indirect taxes on the raising of capital. OJ L 249 of 3.10.1969,
     p. 25.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ L 127 of 9.5.2001, p. 38.
Action brought on 9 October 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                             Action brought on 14 October 2002 by the Commission
                                                                             of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
                          (Case C-364/02)                                                                      lic
                          (2002/C 289/31)                                                             (Case C-369/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 289/32)
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 Octo-
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Legal Adviser in its                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
Legal Service.                                                               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 Octo-
                                                                             ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                             represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Legal Adviser in its
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                 Legal Service.
—      declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
       and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                The Commission claims that the Court should:
       Commission Directive 2001/32/EC (1) of 8 May 2001
       recognising protected zones exposed to particular plant
                                                                             —     declare that, by failing to adopt within the time-limit laid
       health risks in the Community and repealing Directive
                                                                                down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
       92/76/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2001/
       obligations under Article 3(1) of that directive;
                                                                                33/EC ( 1) of 8 May 2001 amending certain annexes to
                                                                                Council Directive 2000/29/EC on protective measures
—      order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                               against the introduction into the Community of organ-
                                                                                isms harmful to plants or plant products and against their
                                                                                spread within the Community, the Hellenic Republic has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                    directive;
                                                                             —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
each Member State to which they are addressed.
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty            In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the                    directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
Community.                                                                   each Member State to which they are addressed.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2002 in Case T-70/99: Alpharma Inc. v Council of the European Union (Transfer of resistance to antibiotics from animals to humans — Directive 70/524/EEC — Regulation withdrawing authorisation of an additive in feedingstuffs — Admissibility — Breach of essential procedural requirements — Manifest error of assessment — Precautionary principle — Risk assessment and risk management — Consultation of a scientific committee — Principle of proportionality — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence)

text:
23.11.2002            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 289/21
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of:
                                                                         J. Azizi, President, K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; F. Erlbach-
                                                                         er, Legal Secretary, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                    of 11 September 2002                                 11 September 2002, in which it:
                                                                         1.     Dismisses the application;
in Case T-13/99: Pfizer Animal Health SA v Council of the                2.     Orders Pfizer to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by
                      European Union ( 1)                                       the Council, including those relating to the proceedings for
                                                                                interim relief;
(Transfer of resistance to antibiotics from animals to humans            3.     Orders the Asociación nacional de productores de ganado
— Directive 70/524/EEC — Regulation concerning the                              porcino, the Asociación española de criadores de vacuno de
withdrawal of the authorisation of an additive in feeding-                      carne, the Fédération européenne de la santé animale and the
stuffs — Admissibility — Article 11 of Directive 70/524/                        Fédération européenne des fabricants d’adjuvants pour la
EEC — Manifest error of assessment — Precautionary                              nutrition animale to bear their own costs and to pay those
principle — Risk assessment and risk management —                               incurred by the Council in respect of their intervention in the
Consultation of a scientific committee — Principle of pro-                      main proceedings and the proceedings for interim relief;
portionality — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to                   4.     Orders the Asociación española de productores de huevos and
   state reasons — Right to property — Misuse of powers)                        the Pig Veterinary Society to bear their own costs and to pay
                                                                                those incurred by the Council in respect of their applications for
                                                                                leave to intervene;
                        (2002/C 289/40)
                                                                         5.     Orders the Commission, the Kingdom of Denmark, the
                                                                                Kingdom of Sweden, the Republic of Finland and the United
                                                                                Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                own costs, both in the main proceedings and in the proceedings
                                                                                for interim relief.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
In Case T-13/99, Pfizer Animal Health SA, established in
Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium), represented by I.S. Forrester QC,
M. Powell, Solicitor, E. Wright, Barrister, and W. van Lemberg-
en, lawyer, instructed by S.J. Gale-Batten, Solicitor, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, supported by Asociación                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
nacional de productores de ganado porcino (Anprogapor),
established in Madrid, and Asociación española de criadores                                      of 11 September 2002
de vacuno de carne (Asovac), established in Barcelona (Spain),
represented by J. Folguera Crespo, A. Gutiérrez Hernández,               in Case T-70/99: Alpharma Inc. v Council of the European
J. Massaguer Fuentes and E. Navarro Varona, avocats, with                                                Union ( 1)
an address for service in Luxembourg, and by Féderation
européenne de la santé animale (Fedesa), established in Brus-            (Transfer of resistance to antibiotics from animals to humans
sels, and Féderation européenne des fabricants d’adjuvants               — Directive 70/524/EEC — Regulation withdrawing auth-
pour la nutrition animale (Fefana), established in Brussels,             orisation of an additive in feedingstuffs — Admissibility —
represented by D. Waelbroeck and D. Brinckman, avocats,                  Breach of essential procedural requirements — Manifest
with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of the              error of assessment — Precautionary principle — Risk
European Union (Agents: J. Carbery, M. Sims and F. P. Ruggeri            assessment and risk management — Consultation of a
Laderchi), supported by Commission of the European Com-                  scientific committee — Principle of proportionality — Legit-
munities (Agents: P. Oliver, T. Christoforou and K. Fitch), by           imate expectations — Obligation to state reasons — Rights
Kingdom of Denmark (Agents: M. J. Molde, Holst-Christensen                                           of the defence)
and S. Ryom), by Kingdom of Sweden (Agents: A. Kruse and
L. Nordling), by Republic of Finland (Agents: H. Rotkirch,                                          (2002/C 289/41)
T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin) and by United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill): Application                                 (Language of the case: English)
for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 of
17 December 1998 amending, as regards withdrawal of the
authorisation of certain antibiotics, Directive 70/524/EEC               In Case T-70/99, Alpharma Inc., established in Fort Lee, New
concerning additives in feedingstuffs (OJ 1998 L 351, p. 4),             Jersey (United States of America), represented by G. Robert,
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/22                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       23.11.2002
Solicitor, and B. Van de Walle de Ghelcke, lawyer, with an                  mantopoulos, J. J. Gutiérrez Gisbert and J. Branton, lawyers,
address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of the European                with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of the
Union (Agents: J. Carbery, M. Sims and J. Monteiro and                      European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt and G. M. Berrisch),
F. P. Ruggeri Laderchi), supported by Commission of the                     supported by Commission of the European Communities
European Communities (Agents: P. Oliver, T. Christoforou and                (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and S. Meany): Application for annul-
K. Fitch), by Republic of Finland (Agents: H. Rotkirch, T. Pynnä            ment of the second paragraph of Article 3 of Council
and E. Bygglin), by Kingdom of Sweden (Agents: A. Kruse and                 Regulation (EC) No 173/2000 of 24 January 2000 terminating
L. Nordling), and by United Kingdom of Great Britain and                    the anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of certain
Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill): Application for annul-                large aluminium electrolytic capacitors originating in Japan,
ment of Council Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 of 17 December                   the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (OJ 2000 L 22, p. 1), the
1998 amending, as regards withdrawal of the authorisation of                Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Compo-
certain antibiotics, Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives              sition), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung,
in feedingstuffs (OJ 1998 L 351, p. 4), the Court of First                  P. Mengozzi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers, Adminis-
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President,                 trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 September
K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; F. Erlbacher, Legal Secretary,           2002, in which it has ruled:
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 September
2002, in which it:
                                                                            1.     Dismisses the action;
1.     Dismisses the application;
                                                                            2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay those of the
                                                                                defendant;
2.     Orders Alpharma to bear its own costs and to pay those
       incurred by the Council, including those relating to the
       proceedings for interim relief;                                      3.     Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
3.     Orders the Commission, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Republic
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
       of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
       Northern Ireland to bear their own costs, both in the main
       proceedings and in the proceedings for interim relief.
( 1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 September 2002
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            in Case T-113/00: DuPont Teijin Films Luxembourg SA
                                                                            and Others v Commission of the European Communi-
                       of 12 September 2002                                                                  ties ( 1)
in Case T-89/00: Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) GmbH                        (Action for annulment — Generalised Tariff Preference
              v Council of the European Union (1)                           System (GSP) — Refusal of request to open investigation —
                                                                            Challengeable act — Misinterpretation of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 2820/98 — Failure to state reasons)
(Anti-dumping — Termination of proceedings — Principle
of equal treatment — Initial investigation in one procedure
coinciding with a review in another procedure —                                                       (2002/C 289/43)
Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Regulation
    terminating anti-dumping procedures — Retroactivity)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                           (2002/C 289/42)
                    (Language of the case: English)                         In Case T-113/00, DuPont Teijin Films Luxembourg SA,
                                                                            established in Luxembourg (Luxembourg), Mitsubishi Polyester
                                                                            Film GmbH, established in Wiesbaden (Germany), Toray
                                                                            Plastics Europe SA, established in Saint-Maurice-de-Beynost
In Case T-89/00, Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) GmbH,                       (France), represented by I. Forrester QC and J. Killick, Barrister,
established in Nuremberg (Germany), represented by K. Ada-                  with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of