title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 1999 in Case T-44/98 R II: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v Commission of the European Communities (Association of the overseas countries and territories - Decisions 91/482/EEC and 97/803/EC - Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 - Procedure for interim measures - Prima facie case - Urgency - Balancing of interests)

text:
28.8.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 246/29
Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President           amended, in so far as the effect of those provisions is to limit
of the Chamber, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,              imports into the Community of sugar originating in the
Registrar, made an order on 29 March 1999, the operative                 overseas countries and territories — the President of the Court
part of which is as follows:                                             of First Instance made an order on 30 April 1999, the
                                                                         operative part of which is as follows:
1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate as to the failure to act.
2. The remainder of the application is dismissed as inadmissible.        1. Operation of Article 108b of Council Decision 91/482/EEC of
                                                                            25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries
3. Each party shall bear its own costs.                                     and territories with the European Economic Community, of
                                                                            Commission Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 of 17 December
                                                                            1997 on rules for issuing import licences for certain products
(1) OJ 1996 C 210.                                                          covered by CN codes 1701, 1702, 1703 and 1704 and
                                                                            qualifying as ACP/OCT originating products, and of the
                                                                            Commission Decision of 23 December 1997 (VI/51329) is
                                                                            suspended with respect to Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV.
                                                                         2. Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV is authorised to import into the
                                                                            Community milled sugar originating in the overseas countries
                                                                            and territories (OCT) within the meaning of Article 6 of Annex
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                II to Decision 91/482, in accordance with the conditions set out
                           INSTANCE                                         in that decision in the version in force until 30 November 1997,
                                                                            subject to the following conditions and restrictions:
                        of 30 April 1999
                                                                            — The imports thus authorised are subject to the provisions of
in Case T-44/98 R II: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v                               Decision 91/482 applicable before the entry into force of
         Commission of the European Communities                                  Council Decision 97/803/EC of 24 November 1997
                                                                                amending at mid-term Decision 91/482, and in particular
(Association of the overseas countries and territories —                         the obligation to obtain an import licence in accordance with
Decisions 91/482/EEC and 97/803/EC — Regulation (EC)                             Article 5(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88
No 2553/97 — Procedure for interim measures — Prima                              of 16 November 1988 laying down common detailed rules
        facie case — Urgency — Balancing of interests)                           for the application of the system of import and export licences
                                                                                and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products, the
                                                                                obligation to obtain an EUR-I certificate, and the obligation
                        (1999/C 246/60)                                          to provide a security of 3 euro/tonne, that security to be
                                                                                released if the import is carried out in accordance with the
                                                                                import licence;
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case T-44/98 R II: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV, established               — The maximum import volume authorised is 7 500 tonnes
in Oranjestad, Aruba, represented by Gerard van der Wal,                         for the period of six months from the date of signature of
Advocate with a right of audience before the Hoge Raad der                       this order;
Nederlanden, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, supported by
Government of Aruba, represented by Pierre V.F. Bos and                     — The sugar of OCT origin imported into the Community must
Marco M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for                     be sold at a price at least equal to the intervention price
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter,                      referred to in Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC)
11 Rue Goethe, v Commission of the European Communities,                         No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common organisation
(Agent: Thomas van Rijn), supported by Council of the                            of the markets in the sugar sector;
European Union (Agents: Jürgen Huber and Guus Houttuin),
Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Mónica López-Monis Gallego) and
French Republic (Agent: Claude Chavance) — application for,                 — Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV shall be able to import the
first, suspension of operation of the Commission Decision of                     sugar of OCT origin on condition that it provides a security
23 December 1997 (VI/51329) rejecting a request by the                           in the form of a bank guarantee in the sum of USD 28 per
applicant for the issue of import licences in respect of sugar                   tonne of sugar which it wishes to import in accordance with
products pending a decision on the substance by the Court of                     this order. The security must be provided at the latest on the
First Instance and, second, interim measures prohibiting the                     date when the sugar is presented to customs for declaration
Commission pending that decision from applying Commission                        and must cover the tonnage so presented. The amount of the
Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 of 17 December 1997 on rules                          security to be provided per tonne of sugar shall be increased
for issuing import licences for certain products covered by CN                   or reduced:
codes 1701, 1702, 1703 and 1704 and qualifying as ACP/OCT
originating products (OJ 1997 L 349, p. 26) and/or Article
108b of Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the                       — according to the rise or fall of the intervention price
association of the overseas countries and territories with the                        referred to in Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No
European Economic Community (OJ 1991 L 263, p. 1), as                                 1785/81;
 ---pagebreak--- C 246/30                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.8.1999
        — according to the fall or rise of the guaranteed price                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
             referred to in Article 5(4) of Protocol No 8 to the Fourth
             ACP-EC Convention signed in Lomé on 15 December
             1989.
                                                                                of 29 April 1999
        The point of reference for the reduction of or increase in the
        amount of the security shall be the intervention price or the       in Case T-78/98: Unione Provinciale degli Agricoltori di
        guaranteed price on the date of signature of the present order;     Firenze and Others v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
   — The total amount of the security provided shall be released,
        upon order of the judge hearing applications for interim
        measures, for the benefit of the Community if the Court of          (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 644/98 —
        Justice within six months from the date of signature of the         Registration of a geographical indication — ‘Tuscan’ olive
        present order declares in its judgment in Case C-17/98 that            oil — Interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissible)
        Article 1C8b is not invalid;
   — For the duration of the interim measure ordered, Emesa                                         (1999/C 246/61)
        Sugar (Free Zone) NV shall not be able to make any
        application for an import licence under Commission Regu-
        lation (EC) No 2553/97 of 17 December 1997 on rules
        for issuing import licences for certain products covered by CN
        codes 1701, 1702, 1703 and 1704 and qualifying as                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
        ACP/OCT originating products.
3. If within six months following the date of signature of the present      In Case T-78/98: Unione Provinciale degli Agricoltori di
   order the Court of Justice gives judgment in Case C-17/98:               Firenze, established in Florence, Italy, Unione Pratese degli
                                                                            Agricoltori, established at Prato, Italy, Consorzio Produttori
   — The present proceedings for interim measures (registered as            dell’Olio Tipico di Oliva della Provincia di Firenze, established
        Case T-44/98 R II) shall be resumed if the Court of Justice         in Florence, Francesco Miari Fulcis, residing at Fiesole, Italy,
        does not declare Article 108b of the OCT decision invalid,          Bonaccorso Gondi, residing at Pontassieve, Italy, Simone
        and the parties shall be invited to submit observations on the      Giannozzi, residing at Barberino Val d’Elsa, Italy, and Antonio
        Court ’s judgment. The steps which the judge hearing the            Morino, residing at Bagno a Ripoli, Italy, represented by
        application for interim measures intends to take in the             Vittorio Chierroni, of the Florence Bar, with an address for
        present proceedings shall be set out in a further order, it         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Franco Colussi,
        being understood that Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV will be            36 Rue de Wiltz, against Commission of the European
        able to continue to import into the Community the sugar             Communities (Agents: José Luis Iglesias and Eugenio De March)
        delivered to it free on board before the date of the judgment       — application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
        of the Court of Justice (i) up to a limit of 7 500 tonnes, (ii)     No 644/98 of 20 March 1998 supplementing the Annex to
        during a period of six months from the date of signature of         Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographi-
        the present order and (iii) in accordance with the conditions       cal indications and designations of origin under the procedure
        set out in point 2 of the operative part;                           laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No
                                                                            2081/92 (OJ 1998 L 87, p. 8), in so far as it provides for
                                                                            registration of the name ‘Tuscan’ as a Protected Geographical
   — The present order shall have effect until the end of the               Indication on the basis of a list of conditions which refers to
        six-month period if the Court of Justice declares Article 108b      additional geographical designations — the Court of First
        of the OCT decision invalid and the Court of First Instance         Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
        has not given a decision in the main proceedings (registered        J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
        as Case T-44/98).                                                   order on 29 April 1999, the operative part of which is as
                                                                            follows:
4. Subject to delivery of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case
   C-17/98 before the end of the first period of six months referred        1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
   to by the present order, import into the Community of a quantity
   to be determined of sugar of OCT origin shall be authorised for
   a further period by means of an order which Emesa Sugar (Free            2. The applicants shall pay the costs.
   Zone) NV, acting in good time, will request the judge hearing
   the application for interim measures to adopt two months before
   the expiry of the first period of six months.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
5. Costs are reserved.


title: NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

text:
No C 117/ 12    rwi                Official Journal of the European Communities                             12 . 5 . 95
                                                          III
                                                        (Notices)
                               EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                         NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
                                                    (95 /C 117/09)
           The Court of Justice of the European Communities and the General Secretariat of the
           European Parliament are publishing in the Official Journal of the European Communities No
           C 117A of 12 May 1995 the following open competition :
           EUR/C/59 (Finnish-language TYPISTS)
           Finnish edition
           To obtain a copy of this Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of
           Justice of the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
           Closing date for application : 12 June 1995 .


title: Action brought on 9 April 1997 by C. A. S. Succhi di Frutta S.p.a. against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-106/97)

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 199/25
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Fidu                 Action brought on 9 April 1997 by C. A. S. Succhi di
ciaire Myson, Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, against European               Frutta S.p.a. against Commission of the European
Parliament (Agents : Manfred Peter and Norbert Lorenz )                                            Communities
— application for annulment of decisions of the European                                        ( Case T-106/97)
Parliament characterizing as irregular the absences of the
applicant from work from March to October 1995 — the                                              ( 97/C 199/70 )
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of B.
Vesterdorf, President, C. P. Briët and A. Potocki, Judges;                               (Language of the case: Italian)
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 26 March 1997, the
operative part of which is as follows:                                 An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
I. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                       Instance of the European Communities on 9 April 1997
                                                                       by C. A. S. Succhi di Frutta S.p.a ., represented by Alberto
                                                                       Miele, of the Padua Bar, Antonio Tizzano and Gian
2 . The parties are to bear their own costs.                           Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar, and Carlo Scarpa, of
                                                                       the Venice Bar, with an address for service in Brussels at
                                                                       Mr Tizzano's Chambers, 36 Place du Grand Sablon.
(') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       — annul the Commission decision of 22 July 1996 (No
                                                                            C(96 ) 1916 ) concerning the supply of fruit juices and
                                                                           jams for the peoples of Armenia and Azerbaijan,
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        ( Second Chamber)                              — order the Commission to pay the costs of the
                           of 2 May 1997                                   proceedings .
in Case T-136/96: Automobiles Peugeot SA v. Commission                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
              of the European Communities (*)
(Competition — Action for annulment — Objection of                     The applicant is the same as that which, in Case T-191/
                           inadmissibility)                            96 ( ] ), contests the ex post facto amendment of one of the
                            ( 97/C 199/69
                                                                       essential points in the notice of tender relating to the
                                                                       supply of fruit juices and jams for the peoples of Armenia
                                                                       and Azerbaijan. It points out in this regard that, while the
               (Language of the case: French)                          amendment contested in Case T-191 /96 consisted in the
                                                                       possibility of withdrawing from intervention stocks fresh
                                                                       products other than those specified in the notice of tender,
In Case T-136/96 : Automobiles Peugeot SA, having its                  in particular peaches, that challenged in the present action
registered office in Paris, represented by Xavier de Roux,             is an amendment, adopted by way of the contested
of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in                       decision, which extends this possibility of substitution to
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 8 Rue                    nectarines .
Zithe , against Commission of the European Communities
( Agents: Giuliano Marenco and Guy Charrier ) —
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
application for the annulment of the Commission's                      those relied on in Case T-191 /96 .
decision of 19 July 19 96 allegedly rejecting requests by the
applicant for confidential treatment of certain information
provided to the Commission in the context of Article 11                (>) OJ No C 94, 22 . 3 . 1997, p . 15 .
of Council Regulation No 17: First Regulation
implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty ( OJ,
English Special Edition, 1959-62 ( I ), p. 87) — the Court
of First Instance ( Second Chamber), composed of C. W.
Bellamy, President, A. Kalogeropoulos and P. Lindh,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 2 May 1997,               Action brought on 11 April 1997 by Molkerei
the operative part of which is as follows:                             Großbraunshain GmbH and Bene Nahrungsmittel GmbH
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                                               ( Case T-109/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/71 )
2 . The applicants shall bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 1997


title: Case T-441/03: Action brought on 31 December 2003 by N.V. Firma Léon Van Parys, N.V. Pacific Fruit Company, Pacific Fruchtimport GmbH and Pacific Fruit Company Italy S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
6.3.2004                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 59/31
Action brought on 29 December 2003 by Jean Arizmendi                        —     Breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate
and 43 other applicants against the Council of the Euro-                          expectations, in that, first, the contested provision refers
      pean Union and the Commission of the European                               to customs representation, which is a separate matter
                             Communities                                          from presentation of goods at customs which is the task
                                                                                of the applicants, and, secondly, the monopoly was
                                                                                abolished without any form of transitional measure.
                           (Case T-440/03)
                                                                            —     Breach of the principles of equality and proportionality,
                            (2004/C 59/49)                                        in that the abrupt opening-up of the market in presen-
                                                                                tation of goods at customs has resulted in a draconian
                                                                                reduction in prices, which ships brokers, who are handi-
                     (Language of the case: French)                               capped by the restrictive rules under which they operate,
                                                                                cannot resist, in the absence of any transitional measures.
                                                                            Lastly, the applicants allege breach of the right to property, as
An action against the Council of the European Union and the                 laid down in the First Protocol to the European Convention on
Commission of the European Communities was brought                          Human Rights.
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 29 December 2003 by Jean Arizmendi and 43 other
applicants, all residing in France, represented by Jean-François            (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
Péricaud and Philippe Péricaud, lawyers.                                        establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
The applicants claim that the Court should:
1.     Order the Council of the European Union and the
       Commission of the European Communities jointly and
       severally to pay to each applicant the compensation
       representing the loss suffered, together with interest at            Action brought on 31 December 2003 by N.V. Firma
       the legal rate from the date the application was lodged;             Léon Van Parys, N.V. Pacific Fruit Company, Pacific
                                                                            Fruchtimport GmbH and Pacific Fruit Company Italy
                                                                                S.p.A. against the Commission of the European
2.     Order the Council of the European Union and the                                                  Communities
       Commission of the European Communities jointly and
       severally to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case T-441/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 59/50)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
The subject matter of the present action is the loss allegedly
suffered by the applicants, who are French ship brokers, as a
result of the abolition in French law, under Law 2001-43 of                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
16 January 2001, of the monopoly traditionally held by French               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ship brokers. This abolition occurred by reason of Article 5                European Communities on 31 December 2003 by N.V. Firma
of the Community Customs Code (1), as applied by the                        Léon Van Parys, established in Antwerp (Belgium), N.V. Pacific
Commission, when steps were taken following infringement                    Fruit Company, established in Antwerp (Belgium), Pacific
proceedings against the French Republic (letter of formal                   Fruchtimport GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany), and
notice of 12 February 1997 and reasoned opinion of 3 Decem-                 Pacific Fruit Company Italy S.p.A., established in Rome (Italy),
ber 1997) concerning the monopoly held by ship brokers,                     represented by P. Vlaemminck and J. Holmens.
under French law, in respect of representation for performing
the acts and formalities laid down by customs rules.
                                                                            The applicants claim that the Court should:
In support of their claims, the applicants contend that the                 1.    order the defendant to pay compensation under
abolition of the monopoly is an act for which the Commission                      Article 235 EC in conjunction with Article 288 EC for
is liable for the following reasons:                                              the damage suffered by the applicants as a result of the
                                                                                unlawful measures introduced by Commission Regulation
—      Breach of Article 55 of the EC Treaty (now Article 45                      No 2362/98, including default interest of 8 % to be paid
       EC), in that ship brokers, in implementing customs                         on all amounts with effect from the date on which the
       legislation, participate in the exercise of official authority.            damage was caused;
 ---pagebreak--- C 59/32                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        6.3.2004
2.    order the defendant to pay interest at the statutory rate          Action brought on 31 December 2003 by Retecal Socie-
      of 8 % on all amounts due;                                         dad Operadora de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León
                                                                         S.A., Euskaltel S.A., Telecable de Asturias S.A., R Cable y
                                                                              Telecomunicaciones Galicia S.A. and Tenaria S.A.
3.    order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case T-443/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 59/51)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
The applicants claim to have suffered damage as a result of
Regulation No 2362/98 (1) in so far as bananas from Ecuador
do not qualify for the quota provided for in respect of                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
traditional ACP bananas and as a result of the ‘country                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
allocation’ system.                                                      European Communities on 31 December 2003 by Retecal
                                                                         Sociedad Operadora de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y
                                                                         León S.A., established in Valladolid (Spain), Euskaltel S.A.,
                                                                         established in Zamudio, (Bizkaia, Spain), Telecable de Asturias,
                                                                         established in Oviedo (Spain), R Cable y Telecomunicaciones
The applicants submit that, despite the Community’s express              Galicia S.A., established in La Coruña (Spain) and Tenaria S.A.,
intention to comply with the GATS and GATT 1994 Agree-                   established in Cordovilla (Navarra, Spain), represented by José
ments from 1 January 1999, as determined and ordered by the              Maria Jiménez Laiglesia, lawyer.
WTO dispute-resolution bodies, there has been a sufficiently
serious breach of superior rules of law as a result of Regulation
No 2362/98 and Regulation No 1637/98 (2). According to the
applicants, the amendments made by those regulations, which              The applicants claim that the Court should:
were enforced up to the end of 2001, infringe the GATS and
GATT Agreements, Community law, the principle of the                     —     annul the decision of 21 October 2003; and
protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of good
faith, international customary law as codified in the Vienna
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay all the costs arising from
Convention on the Law of Treaties and are at variance with
                                                                               the proceedings.
the binding effect of the outcome of a dispute resolution
procedure which has been incorporated in an international
agreement concluded by the Community.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants also allege infringement of the principle of
equal treatment and submit that the Commission exceeded its              The present action is brought against the decision of the
powers of implementation by enforcing, up to the end                     Commission to take no further action on the complaint
of 2001, Regulation No 2362/98 containing rules on the                   submitted by the applicants relating to the alleged failure by
implementation of Regulation No 404/93 which are contrary                the Kingdom of Spain to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(8)
to the GATS and GATT 1994 Agreements. Finally, the                       of the Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December
applicants allege infringement of the protection of legitimate           1989 (1) on the control of concentrations between undertak-
expectations and of the general legal principle of ‘patere legem         ings, with respect to the merger between VIA DIGITAL Y
quam ipse fecisti’ as a result of the failure to grant import            SOGECABLE (Case No COMP/M.2845 Sogecable/Canal Satél-
licences to the actual importer as declared to the Council.              ite Digital/Vía Digital) and conditions applied to that merger
                                                                         by the Spanish authorities. The applicants submit that that
                                                                         article lays down an obligation to carry out investigation and
                                                                         verification, which, in the present case, the Commission has
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998             failed to fulfil.
    laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council
    Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into
    the Community (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32).
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1637/98 of 20 July 1998 amending          The applicants recall that on 22 April 2003, they sent a letter
    Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 on the common organisation of the         to the Commission in which they submitted, essentially, that
    market in bananas (OJ 1998 L 210, p. 28).                            the conditions adopted by the Spanish authorities were not
                                                                         capable of maintaining effective competition in the sector
                                                                         concerned, in that they ensured that SOGECABLE would
                                                                         remain in a monopoly situation, given what was stated by the
                                                                         Commission in the referral decision.


title: Case T-436/09: Action brought on 29 October 2009 — Dufour v ECB

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/31

         Action brought on 29 October 2009 — Dufour v ECB
   (Case T-436/09)
   2010/C 11/59
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Julien Dufour (Jolivet, France) (represented by: I. Schoenacker Rossi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the confirmatory refusal sent by the Board of Directors of the European Central Bank to Mr Dufour by letter dated 2 September 2009 regarding the databases which made possible the compilation of reports on staff recruitment and mobility;

               —

               Consequently, order the European Central Bank to give to Mr Dufour all the databases which made possible the compilation of reports on staff recruitment and mobility;

               —

               Order the European Central Bank to pay the sum of EUR 5 000 in damages in view of the harm suffered by the applicant;

               —

               Order the European Central Bank to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the European Central Bank’s decision of 2 September 2009 refusing to grant him access to the databases which made possible the compilation of reports on staff recruitment and mobility from 1999 to 2009 and which he had requested in the course of preparing his doctoral thesis, and an order for damages because of the delay in the writing of his thesis.
   In support of his action, the applicant submits that the statement of reasons for the refusal to grant him access to the documents in question is unlawful because it relies on exceptions which are unsubstantiated and not provided for by Decision ECB/2004/3 of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (1), which was adopted with a view to the implementation of Regulation No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (2), and is based on the incorrect assumption that the fact that the databases are in an unprinted electronic form means that they are not ‘documents’. Lastly, the European Central Bank is not entitled to rely on, as against the applicant, the difficulties encountered in making the documents available.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 80, p. 42.

      (2)  OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.


title: Case C-428/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het Bedrĳfsleven by judgment of that court of 27 October 1999 in the case of H. van den Bor BV against Het Voedselvoorzieningsin- en verkoopbureau

text:
22.1.2000              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 20/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van                    (b) If not, is it otherwise if participants in the scheme are
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that court                       charged for services provided?
of 27 October 1999 in the case of H. van den Bor BV
  against Het Voedselvoorzieningsin- en verkoopbureau
                         (Case C-428/99)                                 (c) Must Question 1(b) be answered differently if that
                                                                              charge is levied on participants in the scheme whose
                          (2000/C 20/30)                                      participation is mandatory, though not on other users
                                                                              such as inland navigation or sea vessels with a length
                                                                              of less than 41 metres?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
voor het Bedrijfsleven (Commercial Court of Appeal) of
27 October 1999, received at the Court Registry on 8 No-              2. (a) If legislation such as the VBS and its associated charge
vember 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of H. van                   constitutes an obstacle to freedom to provide services,
den Bor BV against Het Voedselvoorzieningsin- en verkoopbu-                   does such restriction then come under the exception
reau on the following questions:                                              provided for in Article 56 (now Article 46) of the EC
                                                                              Treaty for provisions justified on grounds of public
1. Was the Netherlands Minister of Agriculture, Nature                        security?
    Management and Fisheries authorised, pending enactment
    of Community rules in the matter, to adopt national rules
    enabling compensation to be paid in respect of loss
    suffered by the person concerned as a result of the                  (b) Is it material to the reply to be given to Question 2(a)
    slaughter of British calves, as occurred in the case of the               whether the charge is greater than the actual cost of
    decisions by the abovementioned Minister of 23 April                      the service provided to the individual vessel?
    1996?
2. If the answer to Question 1. is in the negative, does
    Community law preclude the honouring of the expectation           3. If legislation such as the VBS and its associated charge
    raised by a decision under the abovementioned national               constitutes an obstacle to freedom to provide services,
    rules that a specified amount of compensation will be paid,          and such restriction is not justified under the exception
    which if solely national law were applicable, would have             provided for in Article 56 (now Article 46) of the EC
    to be regarded as justified?                                         Treaty, can the restriction be justified either because it
                                                                         merely concerns a ‘sales arrangement’, as laid down in
3. If Question 1. Is answered in the affirmative, does Com-              Keck and Mithouard, and there is thus no question of
    munity law, and in particular Regulation No 717/96,                  discrimination, or because it meets the yardsticks for such
    preclude the compensation to the appellant from being                legislation laid down in other judgments, in particular in
    determined in accordance with the abovementioned                     Gebhard?
    national rules.
                                                                      4. (a) Must a Member State’s legislation such as the VBS be
                                                                              deemed to constitute aid within the meaning of
                                                                              Article 92(1) (now Article 87(1)) of the EC Treaty,
                                                                              inasmuch as it exempts certain categories of partici-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State
                                                                              pants, particularly inland navigation, from the require-
by judgment of that court of 4 November 1999 in the
                                                                              ment to pay the charge?
case of Sea-Land Service Inc. against Customs Inspector,
                       Rotterdam District
                         (Case C-430/99)                                 (b) If so, does such aid come within the prohibition of that
                                                                              provision?
                          (2000/C 20/31)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Raad van State                   (c) If Question 4(b) is also answered affirmatively, does
(Council of State) of 4 November 1999, received at the Court                  the description of aid prohibited under Community
Registry on 8 November 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the                  law also have consequences under Community law for
case of Sea-Land Service Inc. against Customs Inspector,                      the remuneration which the participants, apart from
Rotterdam District on the following questions:                                those exempted, are required to pay?
1. (a) Does legislation such as the VBS, in so far as it provides
        for mandatory participation in traffic accompaniment,
        constitute a restriction on freedom to provide services,
        as provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 in
        conjunction with Article 59 (now Article 49) of the EC
        Treaty?


title: Cases F-116/07, F-13/08 and F-31/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 7 July 2010 — Tomas v European Parliament (Civil service — Members of temporary staff — Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities — Termination of employment — Relationship of trust — Prior consultation of the Parliament’s Staff Committee — None)

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/31

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 7 July 2010 — Tomas v European Parliament
   (Cases F-116/07, F-13/08 and F-31/08) (1)

   (Civil service - Members of temporary staff - Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities - Termination of employment - Relationship of trust - Prior consultation of the Parliament’s Staff Committee - None)
   2010/C 274/47
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Stanislovas Tomas (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: M. Michalauskas. lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and K. Zejdová, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, the annulment of the appointing authority's decision to dismiss that applicant and, second, an application for damages for the non-material and material loss suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses applications F-116/07 and F_13/08;

               2.

               Orders the European Parliament to pay Mr Stanislovas Tomas the sum of EUR 1 000, for the non-material damage he has suffered;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application in F-31/08;

               4.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to all of the actions F-116/07, F-13/08 and F-31/08.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008, p. 65, OJ C 142, 7.6.2008, p. 39, and OJ C 158, 21.6.2008, p. 26


title: Case C-536/12 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2012 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 11 September 2012 in Case T-565/08 Corsica Ferries France SAS v European Commission

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/7

         Appeal brought on 26 November 2012 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 11 September 2012 in Case T-565/08 Corsica Ferries France SAS v European Commission

   (Case C-536/12 P)
   2013/C 32/10
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas, N. Rouam and J. Rossi, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Corsica Ferries France SAS, European Commission, Société nationale maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) SA

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment delivered by the Fourth Chamber of the General Court on 11 September 2012 in Case T-565/08 Corsica Ferries France v European Commission, in so far as it annulled the second and third paragraphs of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2009/611/EC of 8 July 2008 concerning the measures C-58/02 (ex N 118/02) which France has implemented in favour of the Société Nationale Maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM); (1)

               —

               rule definitively on the dispute or refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant raises four grounds of appeal seeking that the judgment of the General Court be set aside.
   Firstly, the appellant submits that the General Court infringed Article 107(1) TFEU in holding that the Commission erred in law in finding that the sale of the Société nationale maritime Corse-Méditerranée at a negative price of EUR 158 million did not constitute State aid. The appellant criticises the General Court for having considered that the Commission could not take into account the risk that the brand image of the State, as a global economic actor in the private sector, would be adversely affected, in the context of the reasonable private investor test, in order to determine whether the payment of supplementary redundancy payments to SNCM’s employees in the event of the liquidation of that undertaking would also have been made by a reasonable private investor. In addition, it criticises the General Court for having demanded evidence from the Commission that the payment of supplementary redundancy payments constituted a sufficiently established practice, or even the normal practice, among private entrepreneurs.
   Secondly, the General Court committed an error in law derived from the infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU by holding that the Commission did not take into account all the relevant evidence in its analysis of the comparability of the capital contribution of EUR 8,75 million made by SNCM’s public shareholder and the capital contribution of EUR 26,25 million made by the private purchasers, and that the Commission ought to have taken into account the clause to cancel the sale conceded to the private purchasers in the context of SNCM’s privatisation.
   Thirdly, the General Court infringed Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, read in combination with the first paragraph of Article 53 thereof, and Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, by treating as State aid the measures involving aid to individuals amounting to EUR 38,5 million, without ascertaining, in the alternative, whether that measure met the reasonable private investor test, as maintained by the Commission in the contested decision and the French Government at the hearing before the General Court.
   Lastly, the General Court erred in law in holding that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in approving the balance for restructuring under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and the Guidelines.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 225, p. 180


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 May 1998 in Case T-262/97: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages - Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
25.7.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 234/27
by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane                  1. Dismisses the application as unfounded;
Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SaÁrl, 30            2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Rue de Cessange, v European Parliament (Agent: Yannis
Pantalis) Ð application for annulment of the decision of           (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.
the European Parliament not to promote the applicant to
grade C 3 in the course of the 1996 promotion procedure
Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: P. Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and
J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 June 1998,                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in which it:
                                                                                of 14 May 1998
                                                                   in Case T-262/97: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of
1. Annuls the decision of the Parliament not to promote                            the European Communities (1)
     the applicant to grade C 3 in the course of the 1996                (Action for damages Ð Manifest inadmissibility)
     promotions procedure;
                                                                                (98/C 234/54)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
2. Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
                                                                   In Case T-262/97, Anthony Goldstein, residing in London,
( ) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.
 1                                                                 represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor, 3
                                                                   Kings Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London, against
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                   Richard Lyal) Ð application, in substance, for
                                                                   compensation for the damage alleged to have been caused
                                                                   to the applicant by the Commission's failure to adopt the
                                                                   interim measures he had requested in the context of a
                                                                   complaint against certain anticompetitive practices lodged
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                         under Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 17 of
                       of 9 June 1998                              6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing
                                                                   Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special
in Case T-176/97: Alan Hick v Economic and Social                  Edition 1959Ð1962, p. 87) Ð the Court of First Instance
        Committee of the European Communities (1)                  (Third Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, C. P.
                                                                   BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
(Officials Ð Promotion Ð Official made available to                order on 14 May 1998, the operative part of which is as
work in the department in which he was previously                  follows:
employed Ð Secondment in the interests of the service Ð
                      Misuse of powers)                            1. The application         is  dismissed    as   manifestly
                        (98/C 234/53)                                   inadmissible.
                                                                   2. The applicant shall pay the costs.
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.
In Case T-176/97: Alan Hick, an official of the Economic
and Social Committee of the European Communities,
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                          ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                    OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
SaÁrl, 30 Rue de Cessange, v Economic and Social
Committee of the European Communities (Agents: MoiseÂs                                    of 26 May 1998
Bermejo Garde and Denis Waelbroeck) Ð application for              in Case T-60/98 R: Ecord Consortium for Russian
annulment of Decision No 439/96 A of the Economic and               Cooperation v Commission of the European Communities
Social Committee of 30 September 1996 promoting Mr J.
                                                                   (Interim measures Ð Application for interim measures Ð
to grade A 3 and appointing him Head of the Division for
                                                                             Commission decision rejecting a tender)
social, family, educational and cultural affairs within
Directorate B Ð Consultative work, and of the decision of                                  (98/C 234/55)
the same date rejecting the applicant's application for that
post Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),                               (Language of the case: French)
composed of: J. Azizi, President, and R. García-Valdecasas
and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for                 In Case T-60/98 R: Ecord Consortium for Russian
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 June 1998, in             Cooperation, comprising the following members: Danagro
which it:                                                          Adviser A/S, established at Glostrup (Denmark), Plunkett


title: Case T-289/11: Action brought on 7 June 2011 — Deutsche Bahn a.o. v Commission

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/22

         Action brought on 7 June 2011 — Deutsche Bahn a.o. v Commission
   (Case T-289/11)
   2011/C 238/40
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Deutsche Bahn AG (Berlin, Germany), DB Mobility Logistics AG (DB ML AG) (Berlin, Germany), DB Energie GmbH (Frankfurt-am- Main, Germany), DB Schenker Rail GmbH (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: W. Deselaers, J.S. Brückner and O. Mross, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Forms of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s inspection decision of 14 March 2011 notified on 29 March 2011;

               —

               annul all measures taken on the basis of the inspections, which took place on the basis of that unlawful decision;

               —

               in particular order the Commission to return all the copies of documents made during the inspections, on pain of the annulment of the future Commission decision by the General Court; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 1774 of 14 March 2011 (Cases COMP/39.678 and COMP/39.731), ordering, in accordance with Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), inspections of Deutsche Bahn AG and all legal persons directly or indirectly controlled by the latter by reason of a possible preference of subsidiary undertakings by means of a rebate system in the supply of electromotive power.
   In support of their action, the applicants make five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea: infringement of the fundamental right to inviolability of one’s premises by reason of lack of prior judicial authorisation.

               2.

               Second plea: infringement of the fundamental right to an effective legal remedy by reason of the lack of possibility of prior judicial review of the inspection decision, both from the factual and the legal point of view.

               3.

               Third plea: infringement of defence rights by reason of a disproportionately wide and non-specific subject-matter of the inspection (‘fishing expedition’).

               4.

               Fourth plea: infringement of the principle of proportionality. The inspection decision is disproportionate, since the rebate system for electromotive power has been practised by the applicants for years and has been monitored by the authorities and the German courts many times and found compatible with competition law, and since the answer to the question whether the rebate system is ‘objectively justified’, which the Commission regards as the decisive question, could have been answered by a less invasive measure, namely a request for information.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 27 June 1995 in Case T-169/94 Pia HiFi Vertriebs GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities (Anti-dumping duties P Application for the annulment of a decision on applications for reimbursement)

text:
No C 208/20           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       12 . 8 . 95
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Commission Decision 93/363/EEC of 9 June                     1993
                       of 14 June 1995                              concerning applications for refund of anti-dumping duties
                                                                    collected on imports of certain compact disc players
in Case T-61/92 : Henri de Compte v. European                       originating in Japan (Amroh BV, PIA HiFi , MPI
                         Parliament (M                              Electronic ( 2 ), the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ),
(Officials — Action for annulment — Decision of the                 composed of J. Biancarelli, President of the Chamber, and
President of the European Parliament granting a qualified           C. P. Briët and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
discharge to the accounting officers in respect of the              has given a judgment on 27 June 1995 in which it:
performance oftheir duties — Suspension ofpayment ofthe
              accounting officer's credit balance)                  1 . dismisses the application;
                         ( 95/C 208/41 )
                                                                    2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                 (Language of the case: French)                     (M OJ No C 282 , 20 . 10 . 1993 .
                                                                    ( 2 ) OJ No L 150 , 22 . 6 . 1993 , p . 44 .
In Case T-61/92 : Henri de Compte, a former official of the
European Parliament, residing at Chatel-Saint-Germain
( France ), represented by Edmond Lebrun and Eric Boigelot,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
Fort Rheinsheim, v. European Parliament ( Agents: Francois           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Vainker and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application, first, for the                                  of 27 June 1995
annulment of the decision of the President of the European          in Case T- 1 86/94 , Guérin Automobiles v. Commission of
Parliament of 19 December 1991 granting a discharge to the                           the European Communities ( J )
accounting officers in respect of the performance of their
duties in relation to the 1982 financial year, inasmuch as it       (Competition — Complaint — Notification under Article 6
contains a reservation and continues to suspend payment of          ofRegulation No 99/63/EEC — Action for failure to act —
the credit balance of the guarantee account opened in the                                 Action for annulment)
name of the applicant, and , second, for an order requiring                                     ( 95/C 208/43 )
the Parliament to pay that credit balance, together with
default interest — the Court of First Instance ( Second                              (Language of the case: French)
Chamber ), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and
D. P. M. Barrington and A. Saggio , Judges; B. Pastor,              In Case T-l 86/94 Guérin Automobiles, of Alençon ( France ),
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on           represented by Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris and
14 June 1995 , in which it:                                         Brussels Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                    the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Beatrix de Bourbon
1 . dismisses the action;
                                                                    v. Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                    Francisco Enrique Gonzalez-Diaz and Géraud de Bergues )
2 . orders the parties to pay their own costs.                      — Application for a declaration under Article 1 75 of the EC
                                                                    Treaty that the Commission has failed to address to the
(M OJ No C 258 , 7. 10 . 1992 .                                     applicant a decision on the complaint lodged by it under
                                                                    Article 3 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17 of the Council of
                                                                    6 February 1962 , the first regulation implementing
                                                                    Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty ( 2 ), and in the alternative the
                                                                    annulment of the Commission's letters of 21 January 1993
                                                                    and 4 February 1994 — the Court of First Instance (Third
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Chamber, extended composition ), composed of: J.
                       of 27 June 1995                              Biancarelli, President, R. Schintgen, C. P. Briët, C. W.
in Case T-169/94 Pia HiFi Vertriebs GmbH v. Commission              Bellamy and J. Azizi, Judges, Registrar: H. Jung, has given a
                                                                    judgment on 27 June 1995 , in which it:
               of the European Communities (')
(Anti-dumping duties — Application for the annulment ofa            1 . declares that it is not necessary to give a ruling on the
        decision on applications for reimbursement)                       application in so far as it is based on Article 1 75 of the
                         ( 95/C 208/42 )                                  Treaty;
                                                                    2 . dismisses the remainder of the application as
                (Language of the case: German)                            inadmissible;
In Case T-169/94 Pia HiFi Vertriebs GmbH, having its                3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
registered office in Weiterstadt ( Germany ), represented by
F. Michael Boemke, of the Hamburg Bar, with an address              ( l ) OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7. 1994, p. 15 .
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,           ( 2 ) OJ No 13 , 21 . 2 . 1962 , p. 204 . English Special Edition
11 Rue Goethe, v. Commission of the European                              1959—1962 , p. 87 .
Communities ( Agents : Eric White and Claus-Michael
Happe, then Jörn Sack) — application for the annulment of


title: Case T-241/00: Action brought on 14 September 2000 by "Le Canne" S.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
9.12.2000                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 355/25
Rue, against Council of the European Union (Agents: F. Anton                 In support of its arguments, the applicant alleges:
and G. Ramos Ruano) and European Parliament (Agents:
M. Gómez Leal and F. de Wachter) — application for an order                 —    breach of the principle of audi alteram partem, as laid
suspending the operation of the notice of competition intended                    down in Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
to establish a shortlist as a recruitment reserve for Spanish-                    No 1116/88 of 20 April 1988 laying down detailed rules
language administrators (EUR/A/159/2000) and for Spanish-                         for the application of decisions granting aid for projects
language assistant administrators (PE/90/A), published in the                     concerning Community measures to improve and adapt
Official Journal of the European Communites on 10 June 2000                       structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and in
(OJ C 162 A) — the President of the Court of First Instance                       structural works in coastal waters (2), and of the right of
made an order on 12 October 2000, the operative part of                           access to Commission documents
which is as follows:
                                                                             —    breach of the obligation to state reasons
1.     The application for interim relief is dismissed.
                                                                             —    infringement of Articles 44(1) and 47 and Part II.B of
2.     Costs are reserved.                                                        Regulation No (EEC) 4028/86 of 18 December 1986 on
                                                                                Community measures to improve and adapt structures in
                                                                                the fisheries and aquaculture sector (3), inasmuch as it
                                                                                lacks a legal basis for describing changes to the project in
                                                                                question as ‘substantial changes’.
                                                                             (1) OJ 1996 C 77, p. 11.
                                                                             (2) OJ 1988 L 112, p. 1.
                                                                             (3) OJ 1986 L 376, p. 7.
Action brought on 14 September 2000 by ‘Le Canne’ S.r.l.
     against Commission of the European Communities
                           (Case T-241/00)
                           (2000/C 355/56)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   Action brought on 14 September 2000 by Coillte Teoran-
European Communities on 14 September 2000 by ‘Le Canne’                      ta against the Commission of the European Communities
S.r.l., represented by Giuseppe Carraro and Francesca Maz-
zonetto, of the Padua Bar, and Guy Arendt of the Luxembourg                                           (Case T-244/00)
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Guy Arendt, 7 Val St Croix.
                                                                                (2000/C 355/57)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
—      annul Commission decision C (2000) 1754 of 11 July
       2000;
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—      order the Commission to make good the damage;                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                             European Communities on 14 September 2000 by Coillte
                                                                             Teoranta, represented by Guy French, of McCann FitzGerald,
—      order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.             Dublin (Ireland) and Paul Gallagher and Niamh Hyland.
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                             —    annul that part of Commission Decision of 5 July 2000
By the present action, the applicant, who also brought the                        excluding from Community financing certain expenditure
action in Case T-218/95 Le Canne v Commission (1), contests                       incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee
Commission decision C (2000) 1754 of 11 July 2000 reducing                        Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
the contribution originally granted by Decision C (90) 1923/99                    Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) to the extent that the decision
of 30 October 1990 in respect of the ‘the modernisation and                       excludes expenditure incurred by Ireland of 4,8 million
development of a breeding area at Rosalina (Veneto)’ project.                     Euros in respect of ineligible afforestation aid; and


title: Case T-295/07: Action brought on 3 August 2007 — Vitro Corporativo, S.A. de C.V. v OHIM — VKR Holding (Vitro)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/20

         Action brought on 3 August 2007 — Vitro Corporativo, S.A. de C.V. v OHIM — VKR Holding (Vitro)
   (Case T-295/07)
   (2007/C 235/36)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Vitro Corporativo, S.A. de C.V. (Nuevo Leon, Mexico) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: VKR Holding A/S
   Form of order sought

               —

               Permit registration of the Community trade mark No 2669497 for goods in Class 19.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Vitro’ for goods and services in the Classes 1, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 30, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43 (application No 2669497).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: VKR Holding A/S

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word marks ‘Vitral’: Community (No 651745); Danish (No 1956 1415 VR); German (No 725452); and British (No 1436897), for goods, inter alia, in Class 19, to which opposition was directed.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application for goods in Class 19 refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal refused.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) given that the conflicting signs are phonetically and graphically distinct.

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 April 2001 in Case C-100/00: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Undisputed failure — Directive 73/23/EEC — Electric water heaters — Conditions not prescribed by the directive)

text:
14.7.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 200/7
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Second Chamber)                                                             (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 5 April 2001
                          of 5 April 2001
                                                                           in Case C-123/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-100/00: Commission of the European Communi-                      the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles: criminal
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)                           proceedings against Christina Bellamy and English Shop
                                                                                Wholesale SA (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Undisputed failure — Directive 73/23/EEC — Electric water                  (Free movement of goods — Measures having an effect
    heaters — Conditions not prescribed by the directive)                  equivalent to a quantitative restriction — Marketing of
                                                                                bread — Advertising of foodstuffs)
                          (2001/C 200/11)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/12)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                             (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                              in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-100/00: Commission of the European Communities                   In Case C-123/00: reference to the Court under Article 234
(Agents: R.B. Wainwright and G. Bisogni) v Italian Republic                EC from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Court
(Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by G. Aiello) — application for a              of First Instance, Brussels, Belgium), for a preliminary ruling in
declaration that, by subjecting electric storage water heaters             the criminal proceedings before that court against Christina
to safety conditions not prescribed by Council Directive                   Bellamy and English Shop Wholesale SA — on the interpret-
73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonisation of the                  ation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — the Court (Third
laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed            Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President
for use within certain voltage limits (OJ 1973 L 77, p. 29), and           of the Chamber, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
thus not recognising the presumption of compliance with the                D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
safety conditions of products manufactured in accordance                   has given a judgment on 5 April 2001, in which it has ruled:
with standard EN 60335-2-21, the Italian Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Community law — the Court                  1.    A rule of a Member State prohibiting the marketing of bread
(Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President of the                      and other bakery products whose salt content by reference to the
Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges;                      dry matter exceeds the maximum permitted level of 2 %, when
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                  applied to products which have been lawfully manufactured and
judgment on 5 April 2001, in which it:                                           marketed in another Member State, constitutes a measure
                                                                                having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction within the
1.    Declares that, by subjecting electric storage water heaters to             meaning of Article 28 EC.
      safety conditions not prescribed by Council Directive
      73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonisation of the                  Such a rule is likely to hinder trade between Member States and
      laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed            cannot be regarded as justified under Article 30 EC on the
      for use within certain voltage limits, and thus not recognising            ground of protecting public health.
      the presumption of compliance with the safety conditions of
      products manufactured in accordance with standard EN                 2.    Article 28 EC does not preclude a national rule which prohibits
      60335-2-21, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its                  giving the impression that the branded product possesses
      obligations under that directive;                                          particular qualities when in fact all similar foodstuffs display
                                                                                the same qualities.
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.                                                 (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Wien by order of that court of 18 December 1997 in the cases of (1) Evangelischer Krankenhausverein Wien v. Abgabenberufungskommission and (2) Ikera Warenhandelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v. Oberösterreichische Landesregierung (Case C-437/97)

text:
C 72/6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.3.98
   (c)   Does Article 4(2) of the directive, in conjunction          6. If the directive has been incorrectly transposed, is
         with Article 2(1) thereof, allow a Member State                 Article 4(2) thereof in conjunction with Article 2(1)
         to specify (or to fail to specify) types of project or          vertically directly effective (self-executing) in the sense
         criteria and/or thresholds so that the remodelling              that the authorities of the Member State are required
         of an airport with a runway shorter than                        to subject the projects at issue to an environmental
         2 100 metres is excluded from environmental                     assessment?
         assessment from the outset although it is
         environmentally significant, or is the margin of
         discretion which the Member State enjoys under              (1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
         Article 4(2) of the directive (if (b) is answered in
         the affirmative) thereby exceeded?
2. Is Article 4(2) of the directive, in conjunction with
   Article 2(1), to be interpreted as meaning that the
   obligation to carry out an environmental assessment
                                                                     Reference      for    a     preliminary     ruling    by    the
   also applies to the extension and remodelling of the
                                                                     Verwaltungsgerichtshof Wien by order of that court of
   projects in Annex II if significant effects on the
                                                                     18 December 1997 in the cases of (1) Evangelischer
   environment are likely, or do Articles 4(2) and 2(1)
                                                                     Krankenhausverein Wien v. Abgabenberufungskommission
   allow environmentally significant projects comprising
                                                                     and (2) Ikera Warenhandelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.
   remodelling to be excluded, expressly or impliedly (for
                                                                                Oberösterreichische Landesregierung
   example by rules which are not applicable to airports),
   from environmental assessment from the outset?                                           (Case C-437/97)
                                                                                (98/C 72/11)
3. To what extent does      Article 2(1) of the directive, also
   in conjunction with      Article 2(2), allow the Member
   States to introduce      (or use) alternative assessment
   procedures to that        of an ordinary environmental            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
   assessment and if a      positive answer is given to this         European        Communities        by      order     of     the
   question:                                                         Verwaltungsgerichtshof Wien (Administrative Court,
                                                                     Vienna) of 18 December 1997, received at the Court
                                                                     Registry on 24 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling
   (a) what essential requirements or minimum                        in the cases of (1) Evangelischer Krankenhausverein Wien
         requirements must such an assessment satisfy in             (Protestant Hospital Society, Vienna) v. Abgabenberu-
         order to accord with the objectives of the                  fungskommission (Tax Appeals Commission) and (2) Ikera
         directive and, in particular,                               Warenhandelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v. Oberösterreichische
                                                                     Landesregierung (Regional Government of Upper Austria)
                                                                     on the following questions:
   (b) is the participation of the public within the
         meaning of Article 6 of the directive an essential
         requirement of an environmental assessment?
                                                                     1. Does Article 33(1) of the Sixth Council Directive of
                                                                         17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
                                                                         Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð Common
4. May Article 1(5) of the directive be interpreted as also              system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
   covering projects which, while provided for in a                      (77/388/EEC) (1) preclude the maintenance in force of
   legislative provision which sets out a programme, are                 a levy on the supply for consideration of ice cream
   approved under a separate administrative procedure?                   (including fruits processed therein or added thereto)
                                                                         and beverages, in each case including the containers
                                                                         and accessories sold therewith, the rate of such levy
   What minimum environmental requirements must the                      being 10 % of the consideration in the case of ice
   legislative process' contain in order to achieve the                 cream and alcoholic beverages and 5 % of the
   objectives . . . including that of supplying information'            consideration in the case of non-alcoholic beverages,
   pursued by the directive?                                             where the consideration for the purposes of the
                                                                         relevant provisions of turnover tax law is measured in
                                                                         such a way as to exclude value added tax, service
5. Is the exclusion of projects from the scope of the                    charges and beverage duty?
   directive pursuant to Article 1(4) to be applied to an
   airfield used for both civil and military purposes?
                                                                     2. Do Article 3(2) or the second sentence of Article 3(3)
                                                                         of Council Directive 92/12/EEC (2) (Excise duties
   Could the applicable criterion be the predominant use                 directive) of 25 February 1992 preclude the
   or is it sufficient for the exclusion to apply that the               maintenance in force of a levy such as described in
   airfield is also used for military purposes?                          Question 1?
 ---pagebreak--- 7.3.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 72/7
3. Does Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty preclude a                    Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court) of
    provision exempting the sale of wine direct from the             18 December 1997, received at the Court Registry on
    vineyard from beverage duty?'                                    29 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                     Sandoz GesmbH v. Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                       Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Regional Finance Office
(2) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1.                                        for Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland) on the
                                                                     following questions:
                                                                     1. Do Article 73b in conjunction with Article 73d (in
                                                                         particular, Article 73d(3)) of the EC Treaty and
Reference      for    a     preliminary    ruling    by    the           Article 1(1) in conjunction with Article 4 of Directive
Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of               88/361/EEC (1) concerning the movement of capital
10 December 1997 in the appeals brought by Holger                        preclude the continued application of the first sentence
Warnecke, Dirk Schultz, Rudolf Weinzierl, Johann                         of the fourth subparagraph of Paragraph 33 TP 8 of
Schachtner,       Konrad       Sonnleitner      and     Ulrich           the 1957 Gebührengesetz (Law on Stamp Duties,
Muckenschnabel           against      the        Unabhängiger            hereinafter the GebG', in the version published in
Verwaltungssenat des Landes Salzburg, Additional Party:                  BGBl. (Federal Law Gazette) 818/1993), which
       Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und Verkehr                       provides that, where a loan granted by a lender who
                                                                         neither resides in Austria nor maintains his habitual
                       (Case C-438/97)
                                                                         abode, his head office or his seat there is not recorded
                         (98/C 72/12)                                    in an instrument giving rise to liability to pay stamp
                                                                         duty, the books and records which are maintained by
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   the debtor in accordance with the national rules on
European        Communities        by     order      of    the           taxes and duties and in which the loan is recorded are
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court), Austria, of               to be deemed to constitute the relevant document?
10 December 1997, received at the Court Registry on
29 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the appeals            2. Does the taxation of loans (in so far as they result in a
brought by Holger Warnecke, Dirk Schultz, Rudolf                         flow of capital from one Member State to another)
Weinzierl, Johann Schachtner, Konrad Sonnleitner and                     under the first subparagraph of Paragraph 33 TP 8
Ulrich Muckenschnabel against the Unabhängiger                           GebG constitute arbitrary discrimination or a
Verwaltungssenat des Landes Salzburg (Independent                        concealed restriction on the free movement of capital
Administrative Board for the Land of Salzburg),                          and payments within the meaning of Article 73b of
Additional Party: Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und                    the Treaty?
Verkehr (Federal Minister for Science and Transport) on
the following question:
                                                                     (1) OJ L 178, 8.7.1988, p. 5.
Are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty (provisions on the
freedom of movement of goods) and the other provisions
of applicable Community law to be interpreted as
preventing a Member State from restricting the transport
of animals for slaughter in that animals may be
transported for slaughter only as far as the nearest suitable        Action brought on 23 December 1997 by the Kingdom of
abattoir in that State, and may be transported for                    Spain against Commission of the European Communities
slaughter in any event only if the provisions of law
regarding motor vehicles and traffic regulation are                                         (Case C-443/97)
observed and a total journey time of six hours and a                                          (98/C 72/14)
distance of 130 kilometres are not exceeded, whereby, in
calculating the distance, account is taken of only half of
the kilometres actually travelled on a motorway?                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                     the European Communities on 23 December 1997 by the
                                                                     Kingdom of Spain, represented by Rosario Silva de
                                                                     Lapuerta, Abogado del Estado, with an address for service
                                                                     in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4Ð6 Boulevard
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Austrian                 E. Servais.
Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of
18 December 1997 in the case of Sandoz GesmbH v.
Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          Burgenland
                       (Case C-439/97)                               1. annul the Commission Guidelines of 15 October 1997
                         (98/C 72/13)                                    relating to the net financial adjustments pursuant to
                                                                         Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (1); and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by order of the Austrian                    2. order the defendant institution to pay the costs.