C 213/42                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          6.9.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants in Case T-391/02 ( 1) brought an action for                 The applicant has worked for the defendant since 1 July 1999.
annulment of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European                  On 1 July 2003 his current contract expires. However, the
Parliament and of the Council ( 2) and claimed that the Court              applicant’s request for a renewal of her contract was rejected
should annul the Regulation in so far as derogations to the                by the defendant. The applicant is challenging that decision.
prohibition on the use of catering waste in feed under
Article 22 are permitted for no more than four years from
1 November 2002. The contested decision adopts transitional                In support of his application the applicant first alleges an
measures in accordance with Article 32(2) of the Regulation.               infringement of the duty to provide a statement of reasons.
The applicants claim that the time-limit on the transitional               The applicant goes on to assert that the defendant exceeded its
measures is unlawful. It is not necessary for the purpose of               policy-making powers. The defendant drew up basic principles,
achieving the intended objective. For the rest, the applicants             policy rules and a stage plan to ensure that contracts are
refer to the pleas and arguments put forward in Case T-391/                extended in a clear and transparent manner. According to the
02.                                                                        applicant the defendant exceeded its margin of discretion in
                                                                           the application of those rules.
( 1) OJ 1992 C 44, p. 42.
( 2) Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and           Finally, the applicant submits that there was an infringement
     of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules             of the duty of care, as well as an infringement of the principle
     concerning animal by-products not intended for human consump-         of equal treatment.
     tion (OJ 2002 L 273, p. 1).
                                                                           Lastly, the applicant asserts that the fact that he is a member
                                                                           of Europol’s supervisory body and a union member are the
                                                                           reasons why his contract is not being extended. The applicant
                                                                           is of the view that employees who are members of a
                                                                           co-determination body must enjoy extra protection against
                                                                           dismissal and that in such cases it is for the employer to show
                                                                           that there is no connection between the dismissal and the
Action brought on 11 July 2003 by Andreas Mausolf v                        activities of the employee.
                               Europol
                          (Case T-258/03)
                          (2003/C 213/81)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-280/93 (1)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/82)
An action against Europol was brought before the Court of                                     (Language of the Case: English)
First Instance of the European Communities on 11 July 2003
by Andreas Mausolf, residing in Leiden (Netherlands) and
represented by M.F. Baltussen and P. Casparis.
                                                                           By order of 12 June 2003 the President of the First Chamber
                                                                           of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                ordered the removal from the register of Case T-280/93: Brian
                                                                           Stephen Garrett v Council of the European Union and
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities.
(1) annul the (partial) rejection by Europol on 14 April 2003
        of the applicant’s complaint against the decision of
        30 September 2002, together with the latter decision;
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 302 of 19.11.1992.
(2) order Europol to pay the applicant compensation includ-
        ing in any event the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-296/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Ministero delle Comunicazioni (Telecommunications services — Directive 97/13/EC — Articles 6, 11, 22 and 25 — Fees and charges for general authorisations and individual licences — Obligation on former holders of exclusive rights — Temporary continuation)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Ministero delle Comunicazioni
   (Case C-296/06) (1)

   (Telecommunications services - Directive 97/13/EC - Articles 6, 11, 22 and 25 - Fees and charges for general authorisations and individual licences - Obligation on former holders of exclusive rights - Temporary continuation)
   (2008/C 92/07)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Telecom Italia SpA

      Defendants: Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Ministero delle Comunicazioni
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio — Interpretation of Articles 11, 22 and 25 of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15) — Whether it is possible to impose fees and charges other than those permitted by the directive
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 6, 11, 22 and 25 of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services preclude a Member State from requiring an operator, formerly the holder of an exclusive right to provide public telecommunications services and then the holder of a general authorisation, to pay a pecuniary charge such as the charge in the main proceedings, corresponding to the amount previously demanded for that exclusive right, for one year from the final date laid down for transposition of that directive into national law, namely 31 December 1998.

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.


title: Case C-61/07: Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/18

         Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-61/07)
   (2007/C 95/32)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to send the report containing the information required under Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol (1), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article;

               —

               order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg failed to communicate to the Commission by 15 March 2005 the report containing the information required under Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004 on, firstly, national policies and measures which limit and/or reduce greenhouse gas emissions by sources or enhance removals by sinks, presented on a sectoral basis for each greenhouse gas and, secondly, national projections of greenhouse gas emissions by sources and their removal by sinks as a minimum for the years 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020, organised by gas and by sector.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 49, p. 1.


title: Case T-562/13: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — Isotis v Commission (Arbitration clause — Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme — REACH112 contract — Reimbursement of sums advanced — Eligible costs)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — Isotis v Commission
   (Case T-562/13) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme - REACH112 contract - Reimbursement of sums advanced - Eligible costs))
   (2016/C 106/32)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Skliris, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Di Paolo and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents, and initially by E. Petritsi, then by E. Roussou, lawyers)

      Re:

   First, applications based on Article 272 TFEU, seeking, primarily, to have the Commission’s request seeking reimbursement of pre-financing of EUR 47 197,93 paid to the applicant under contract No 238940, ‘REsponding to All Citizens needing Help (REACH112)’, concluded between the Commission and the applicant to be declared unfounded, and, alternatively, to have the Commission’s request seeking reimbursement of that pre-financing as regards the expenses submitted to the Commission for the first reference period of the REACH112 project for a sum of EUR 13 821,12 to be declared unfounded, and, second, counterclaim seeking to order the applicant to reimburse the pre-financing unduly paid in the context of that contract and interest for late payment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis’ claim seeking a declaration that as the general conditions of the Sixth Framework Programme do not apply to the contract at issue, it cannot be liable for liquidated damages under that contract and that, therefore, the European Commission infringed the contract at issue by declaring its intention to claim such damages;

               2)

               Declares that Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis’ application seeking a finding that there is no basis for the claim for reimbursement of pre-financing which it has received under contract No. 238940 ‘Responding to All Citizens Needing Help (REACH112)’ is upheld as regards the costs declared by it for the first reference period of the REACH112 project;

               3)

               Declares that Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — IsoTis’ action is dismissed as to the remainder;

               4)

               Declares that the Commission’s application seeking to order reimbursement by Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis of pre-financing which it has received under contract No. 238940 ‘Responding to All Citizens Needing Help (REACH112)’ is rejected as regards the costs declared by it for the first reference period of the REACH112 project;

               5)

               Orders that Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — IsoTis shall pay the Commission the amount of EUR 33 376,81, plus interest at the rate of 4 % per annum as of 29 October 2013 and until full payment of that amount;

               6)

               Orders that Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — IsoTis and the Commission shall each bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.


title: Case T-109/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 — Vodafone España and Vodafone Group v Commission (Action for annulment — Directive 2002/21/EC — Commission's letter of comments — Article 7 of Directive 2002/21 — Act not amenable to review — Applicant not affected directly — Inadmissibility)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/42

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 — Vodafone España and Vodafone Group v Commission
   (Case T-109/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 2002/21/EC - Commission's letter of comments - Article 7 of Directive 2002/21 - Act not amenable to review - Applicant not affected directly - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 51/78)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Vodafone España SA (Madrid, Spain) and Vodafone Group plc (Newbury, Berkshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Flynn QC, E. McKnight and K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Shotter and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by M. Muñoz Pérez, abogado del Estado)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the letter addressed by the Commission on 30 January 2006 to the Comisión del Mercado de las Telecomunicaciones, on the basis of Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Vodafone España SA and Vodafone Group plc shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

               3.

                  The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.


title: Case T-145/17: Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Kanyama v Council

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/33

         Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Kanyama v Council
   (Case T-145/17)
   (2017/C 129/51)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Célestin Kanyama (Gombe, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: O. Okito, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 implementing Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 of 12 December 2016 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP, in so far as it concerns Mr Célestin Kanyama;

               —

               order the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant and all interveners.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-139/17, Kibelisa v Council.


title: Case T-315/09: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2010 — Hoelzer v OHIM (SAFELOAD) (Community trade mark — Application for the figurative Community trade mark SAFELOAD — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/38

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2010 — Hoelzer v OHIM (SAFELOAD)
   (Case T-315/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the figurative Community trade mark SAFELOAD - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2010/C 209/58
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Oliver Hoelzer (Remscheid, Germany) (represented by: Rother, J. Vogtmeier, P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. M. Künzel, D. Jestaedt and M. Bergermann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 June (Case R 1157/2008-4), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign SAFELOAD as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Hoelzer to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267 of 7.11.2009


title: Case T-303/02: Action brought on 4 October 2002 by Westfalen Gassen Nederland B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.12.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 305/25
Action brought on 4 October 2002 by Westfalen Gassen                     Furthermore, according to the applicant, the Commission has
Nederland B.V. against the Commission of the European                    failed to take account of the fact that, by virtue of the attitude
                           Communities                                   adopted it at meetings of the Vereniging van Fabrikanten van
                                                                         Industriële Gassen (Association of Manufacturers of Industrial
                                                                         Gases), smaller undertakings were excluded from further
                         (Case T-303/02)                                 involvement in the discussions concerning the concerted
                                                                         practices at issue. The applicant’s attitude was not passive; on
                                                                         the contrary, it actively opposed those practices. According to
                         (2002/C 305/54)                                 the applicant, the attitude thus adopted by it in fact had an
                                                                         effect which was beneficial to competition.
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         The applicant further claims that the Commission is mistaken
                                                                         as to the duration of the infringement allegedly committed by
                                                                         it.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Finally, the applicant claims that the fine imposed is contrary
European Communities on 4 October 2002 by Westfalen                      to the principles of proportionality and equality. According to
Gassen Nederland B.V., established at Deventer (Netherlands),            the applicant, having regard to the turnover figure at the time
represented by J.J.M. Essers, lawyer.                                    of the infringement, it has in relative terms suffered the
                                                                         heaviest penalty, and the Commission, when fixing the amount
                                                                         of the fine, proceeded on the basis of incorrect factual
                                                                         assumptions.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) primarily, annul Articles 1 and 3 of the Commission’s
      decision of 24 July 2002 in case COMP/E-3/36.700 —
      Industrial and medical gases, imposing on the applicant a
      fine of EUR 0.43 million for infringement of Article 81(1)
      EC;
                                                                         Action brought on 7 October 2002 by NV Hoek Loos
(2) alternatively, annul Article 1 of that decision and substan-           against the Commission of the European Communities
      tially reduce the fine imposed by Article 3 thereof;
                                                                                (Case T-304/02)
(3) order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2002/C 305/55)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant has been active on the Netherlands market since            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
1989. It imports industrial gases from Germany from its                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
parent company, Westfalen AG, or purchases them from other               European Communities on 7 October 2002 by NV Hoek
producers.                                                               Loos, established at Schiedam (Netherlands), represented by
                                                                         J.J. Feenstra and B.F. van Harninxma thoe Slooten, lawyers.
By the contested decision, the Commission found that the
applicant had participated in concerted practices relating to            The applicant claims that the Court should:
price increases, moratoria and minimum prices in respect of
the Netherlands market.                                                  (1) primarily, annul Article 3 of the contested decision, in so
                                                                                far as it concerns the fine imposed on the applicant;
In support of its claim, the applicant states that the Com-              (2) alternatively, in the exercise of its unfettered jurisdiction
mission has produced no proof, or no sufficient proof, of any                   and applying justice in an appropriate manner, substan-
infringement by it of Article 81(1) EC. Thus, the Commission                    tially reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;
has not proved, or has not sufficiently proved, that the
applicant took part in the concerted practices.                          (3) order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-275/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords (United Kingdom), by order of that court of 7 June 2001, in the case of Sinclair Collis Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

text:
13.10.2001            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 289/11
b)   Does Article 11 of the Directive simply mean that, if a                  eligible to join the Scheme can comply with the require-
     candidate for approval to audit accounting documents in                  ment of being employed under a contract of employment,
     a Member State of the European Union has obtained,                       and by establishing that the requirement is not objectively
     under the regime which applied before harmonisation,                     justified?
     some of the required qualifications in another Member
     State, the Member State from which approval is sought
     regards those qualifications as having been obtained in
     that same State and does not introduce an exception to
     the generally applicable rule that approval is granted only
     after an examination of professional competence has
     been passed? Or is it to be interpreted as allowing a
     person holding an approval to audit accounting docu-               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
     ments which has been granted to him in a Member State              Bari — Sezione distaccata di Altamura, by order of that
     under the regime which applied before harmonisation to             court of 28 June 2001 in the case of Walter Ferro against
     receive the corresponding approval in another Member                                       Giovanni Santoro
     State without being obliged to sit an examination of
     professional competence, but just on a simple finding                                       (Case C-273/01)
     that his qualifications are equivalent?
                                                                                (2001/C 289/21)
(1) OJ L 126, 12.5.1984, p. 20.                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Bari —
                                                                        Sezione distaccata di Altamura (Bari District Court, Altamura
                                                                        Division) of 28 June 2001, which was received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 12 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                        of Walter Ferro against Giovanni Santoro on the following
                                                                        question:
                                                                        ‘whether Directive 86/653/EEC (1) on the coordination of the
                                                                        laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commer-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal               cial agents and, in any event, the principles of Community law
(England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court              of freedom of movement and the freedom to provide services
of 22 June 2001, in the case of Debra Allonby against 1)                are to be interpreted as being compatible with national
Accrington & Rossendale College, 2) Education Lecturing                 legislation which makes the right of brokers to payment for
Services, 3) Secretary of State for Education and Employ-               services conditional upon their being entered in the appropri-
                               ment                                     ate register.’
                        (Case C-256/01)                                 (1) Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the
                                                                            coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-
                                                                            employed commercial agents OJ L 382, 31.12.1986, p. 17.
                        (2001/C 289/20)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) of 22 June 2001, which was
received at the Court Registry on 3 July 2001, for a preliminary        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords
ruling in the case of Debra Allonby against 1) Accrington &             (United Kingdom), by order of that court of 7 June 2001,
Rossendale College, 2) Education Lecturing Services, 3) Sec-            in the case of Sinclair Collis Ltd against Commissioners of
retary of State for Education and Employment, on the follow-                                   Customs and Excise
ing questions:
                                                                                (Case C-275/01)
1.   Does Article 141 have direct effect so as to enable a
     woman to claim equal pay with a man in the circum-                                          (2001/C 289/22)
     stances of this case?
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
2.   Does Article 141 have direct effect so as to entitle               European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
     Mrs Allonby to claim access to the pension scheme either           (United Kingdom) of 7 June 2001, which was received at the
     (i) by comparing herself with Mr Johnson or (ii) by                Court Registry on 12 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
     showing statistically that a considerably smaller pro-             case of Sinclair Collis Ltd against Commissioners of Customs
     portion of female than of male teachers who are otherwise          and Excise, on the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/12               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13.10.2001
‘Is the grant, by the owner of premises (“the Siteholder”) to an               inconsistent findings of fact, or can it only be based on
owner of a cigarette vending machine, of the right to install,                 possible incompatible holdings of law?
operate and maintain the machine in the premises for a period
of two years, in a place nominated by the Siteholder, in return
for a percentage of the gross profits of the sales of cigarettes
and other tobacco goods in the premises, but with no other               (3) If proceedings have been brought in the Courts of a
significant rights of possession or control than those set out in              Contracting State against a Defendant domiciled in that
the written agreement between the parties, capable of amount-                  State for a claim in a matter relating to contract, does
ing to the letting of immovable property with the meaning of                   Article 6(1) permit the Claimant to join as an additional
Article 13(b) of Council Directive No 77/388/EEC (1) of the                    Defendant a person domiciled in another Contracting
17th day of May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of                       State against whom his claim amounts to a matter relating
the Member States relating to turnover taxes; and what are                     to tort, delict or quasi-delict and not a matter relating to
the principles applicable in deciding whether an agreement                     contract, where (unless such a conclusion is precluded by
amounts to the letting of immovable property within such                       the different legal nature of the two claims) the national
meaning?’                                                                      Court is satisfied that the connection between the claims
                                                                               against the two Defendants is of such a kind that it is
                                                                               expedient to determine the claims together in order to
                                                                               avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                                 separate proceedings?
                                                                         (4) May the Claimant join the Second Defendant in reliance
                                                                               on Article 6(1) in the circumstances described in question
                                                                                3) above, where
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court                     (a)   the first claim is under a contract for a package
of 27 June 2001, in the case of Brian Watson (a patient by
                                                                                holiday under which the First Defendant, the orga-
his mother and Litigation Friend Julie Watson) against                               niser or provider of the holiday, accepts responsi-
1) First Choice Holidays & Flights Ltd, 2) Aparta Hotels                             bility for bodily injury to the Claimant caused by
                           Caledonia SA
                                                                                negligent acts or omissions of its agents, suppliers
                                                                                and sub-contractors and their servants and agents
                         (Case C-280/01)                                             whilst in the course of their employment, and
                         (2001/C 289/23)
                                                                               (b) the second claim is a claim in the tort of negligence
                                                                                against the Second Defendant, who is one of the First
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                               Defendant’s agents suppliers or sub-contractors, and
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal                              the claim is based upon the negligence of one or
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) of 27 June 2001, which was                        more of the Second Defendant’s employees or agents
received at the Court Registry on 16 July 2001, for a                                in the course of their employment?
preliminary ruling in the case of Brian Watson (a patient by
his mother and Litigation Friend Julie Watson) against 1) First
Choice Holidays & Flights Ltd, 2) Aparta Hotels Caledonia SA,
on the following questions:
(1) Is there a connection between claims which is sufficient to          (1) Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the
      justify the application of Article 6(1) of the Convention (1)          enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ
      only where the risk of irreconcilable judgments can be                 1975 L 204, p. 28), as amended by the Convention of 9 October
      avoided altogether, or may it exist where it is possible by            1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and
      means of Article 6(1) to avoid that risk as regards                    the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ
      judgments affecting the parties to the proceedings to                  1978 L 304, p. 1 and — amended text — p. 77), by the
      which Article 6(1) would apply although some risk of                   Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
                                                                             Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention of 26 May
      irreconcilable judgments would remain as between those                 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the
      proceedings, on the one hand, and a claim or claims                    Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1).
      involving one or some of those parties and one or more
      other parties, on the other hand?
(2) May a connection between claims which is sufficient to
      justify the application of Article 6(1) exist where the
      risk of irreconcilable judgments arises from possible


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London, by direction of that court of 7 April 1997, in the case of The Institute of the Motor Industry against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Case C-149/97)

text:
No C 166/ 12           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    31 . 5 . 97
Article 23 ( 2 ) ( relating to fire protection equipment) —                       Removal from the register of C-205/90 ( ] )
technical regulations within the meaning of Article 1 ( 5 )                                        ( 97/C 166/24 )
of Directive 83/ 189/EEC .
                                                                       By order of 20 February 1997 the President of the Court
(') OJ No L 109 , 1983 , p . 8 .                                       of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                       removal from the register of Case C-205/90 ( reference for
                                                                       a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel
                                                                       te Kortrijk ): Les Assurances du Credit Namur SA v.
                                                                       1 . PVBA 'Bowy' and 2 . G. Decoopman .
                                                                       ( 1 ) OJ No C 212, 25 . 8 . 1990 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Tribunal, London, by direction of that court of 7 April
1997, in the case of The Institute of the Motor Industry
      against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise
                          Case C-149/97 )
                                                                                Removal from the register of C- 126/96 (')
                          ( 97/C 166/23 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/25
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 By order of 25 February 1997 the President of the Court
European Communities by direction of the VAT and                       of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Duties Tribunal of 7 April 1997, which was received at                 removal from the register of Case C-126/96 ( reference for
the Court Registry on 17 April 1997, for a preliminary                 a preliminary ruling from Her Majesty's Court of Session
ruling in the case of The Institute of the Motor Industry              in Scotland, Edinburgh ): Marie Brizard and Roger
against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the                International SA v. William Grant & Sons ( International )
                                                                       Ltd and William Grant & Sons Ltd .
following question :
                                                                       (!) OJ No C 180 , 22 . 6 . 1996 .
'In the light of the findings of fact in paragraph 3—19 and
21 of the Decision of the Tribunal and in circumstances of
the sort found in paragraph 21 (which is summarized
below ), are the services supplied by such an association,
being a non-profit-making organization, exempt from VAT
as falling within the scope of Article 13A.1 ( 1 ) of the                         Removal from the register of C-133/96 ( ')
Sixth Directive ( J ) by virtue of the following words:                                            ( 97/C 166/26 )
                                                                       By order of 25 February 1997 the President of the Court
"(...) organizations with aims of a (...) trade-union (...)            of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
nature (...)"?                                                         removal from the register of Case C-133/96 ( reference for
                                                                       a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Anco
                                                                       na ): Ministero delle Finanze dello Stato v. Foods Import
Paragraph 21 , in summary, states that the association is a            Sri dei Flli Monti .
voluntary association of individuals comprising of
employees in the retail motor industry. The primary                    (') OJ No C 180 , 22 . 6 . 1996 .
purposes of the association are the improvement of the
standards of its members at work, the improvement of
career structures within the         different   sectors    of the
industry and the consequent enhancement of the public
perception of the industry and the people working within
it. The association seeks to achieve these ends by                                Removal from the register of C-186/95 (')
responding to the requirements of the industry for skills at                                       ( 97/C 166/27 )
all levels, by validating courses ( run by other institutions )
that teach those skills, by making awards on completion
of those courses and by grading its members, by                        By order of 27 February 1997 the President of the Court
disseminating information designed to keep its members                 of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
up to date with developments in the industry and in their              removal from the register of Case C-186/95 (reference
skills and by keeping a job placement register.'                       for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale
                                                                       di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Castelnuovo di Porto ):
 O Directive 77/388/EEC of the Council of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                       criminal proceedings against Luciano Iommi, Giovanni
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to          Carnovale, Franco De Bonis, Giorgio Iommi and Antonio
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax :                Iommi .
    uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ).
                                                                        (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .


title: Case C-29/04: Action brought on 28 January 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
C 71/12                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         20.3.2004
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Action brought on 28 January 2004 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Austria
The Spanish authorities have not officially designated as
bathing areas, the beaches Viela/A Videira, Niño do Corvo and
Canabal in the municipality of Moaña (Pontevedra), in spite of
                                                                                (Case C-29/04)
the frequent presence of bathers on those beaches. In the
absence of a ban on bathing, the presence of bathers requires
the designation of those beaches as bathing waters, for the
purpose of Directive 76/160. In the absence of such a                                               (2004/C 71/19)
designation, those three beaches have not been subject to the
surveillance required by the Directive.
The waters of the Ría de Vigo do not conform to the guideline              An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
values, laid down by Directive 79/923, for faecal coliforms, in            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
spite of the fact that nearly all of those waters have been                on 28 January 2004 by the Commission of the European
designated by the Spanish authorities as shellfish waters.                 Communities, represented by Klaus Wiedner, acting as Agent,
Accordingly, Article 5 of that directive requires the establish-           with an address for service in Luxembourg.
ment of a programme to reduce pollution in order to ensure
that the designated waters conform to the values fixed in the
Annex to Directive 79/923. However, the pollution-reduction
programme for the Ría de Vigo has not been notified to the                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
Commission.
                                                                           1.    declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
(1) OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1; Spanish Special Edition 15/01, p. 133.                   obligations under Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June
(2) OJ 1979 L 281, p. 47; Spanish Special Edition 15/02, p. 156.                 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the
                                                                                award of public service contracts (1), in that award of the
                                                                                refuse disposal contract entered into by the town of
                                                                                Mödling failed to comply with the procedures and
                                                                                advertising rules laid down in Article 8, in conjunction
                                                                                with Article 11(1) and Article 15(2), of that directive;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal De
                                                                           2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
Grand Instance de Paris (Third Chamber, Second Division)
by order of that Court of 5 December 2003 in the case of
Société TOD’S SpA (formerly named EMA Srl) and SARL
TOD’S France formerly named DEVA France against S.A.
    Heyraud; Voluntary intervener: Sté Technisynthese
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case C-28/04)
                          (2004/C 71/18)                                   On 21 May 1999, the municipality of Mödling decided to use
                                                                           its own vehicle to carry out its statutory duties relating to
                                                                           refuse disposal. A company, AbfallGmbH, was incorporated
                                                                           for this purpose. The whole of the company’s share capital
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     was held by one member, namely the municipality of Mödling.
European Communities by order of the Tribunal De Grand                     The contract for disposal, under which the municipality of
Instance de Paris (Paris Regional Court) of 5 December 2003,               Mödling transferred exclusive responsibility for the collection
received at the Court Registry on 28 January 2004, for a                   and treatment of waste to AbfallGmbH, was entered into on
preliminary ruling in the case of Société TOD’S SpA (formerly              15 September 1999. The contract was entered into for an
named EMA Srl) and SARL TOD’S France formerly named                        unlimited period and came into force with retrospective effect
DEVA France against S.A. Heyraud; Voluntary intervener: Sté                on 1 July 1999. Two weeks after the conclusion of the contract
Technisynthese, on the following question:                                 for refuse disposal, the town council of the municipality of
                                                                           Mödling decided that the municipality of Mödling, as sole
                                                                           member of AbfallGmbH, should transfer 49 % of its shares to
Does Article 12 of the EC Treaty, which lays down the general              a private undertaking.
principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality,
mean that the right of an author to claim in a Member State
the copyright protection afforded by the law of that State may
not be subject to a distinction based on the country of origin             The Republic of Austria is of the opinion that the provisions
of the work?                                                               of Directive 92/50/EEC do not apply to the award of the waste
                                                                           disposal contract to AbfallGmbH, as it involved a so-called ‘in-
                                                                           house’ transaction.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.3.2004             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 71/13
The Commission claims that the agreement of 15 September                 Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission
1999 to transfer the responsibility for the collection and               of the European Communities against the French Republic
treatment of waste from the municipality of Mödling to
AbfallGmbH does not fall to be classified as an ‘internal                                           (Case C-32/04)
transfer’ within the administration of the municipality of
Mödling, as the municipality of Mödling ceased to exercise the
control over AbfallGmbH that it would have over its own                                             (2004/C 71/21)
departments. The transfer of responsibility for the carrying out
of public services accordingly involves a public service contract
which was subject to the compulsory tender procedure.                    An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 January
                                                                         2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
(1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
                                                                         represented by U. Wölker and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                         the Court should:
Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission                      —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                             and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                              Spain                                            Commission Directive 2001/58/EC of 27 July 2001
                                                                               amending for the second time Directive 91/155/EEC
                         (Case C-31/04)                                        defining and laying down the detailed arrangements for
                                                                               the system of specific information relating to dangerous
                         (2004/C 71/20)                                        preparations in implementation of Article 14 of European
                                                                               Parliament and Council Directive 1999/45/EC and relat-
                                                                               ing to dangerous substances in implementation of
                                                                               Article 27 of Council Directive 67/548/EEC (safety data
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                      sheets) (1), or, in any event, by failing to inform the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 Janu-                   Commission thereof, the French Republic has failed to
ary 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        fulfil its obligations under that directive;
represented by K. Banks and F. Castillo de la Torre, of the
Commission’s Legal Service, with an address for service in               —     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with             The period for transposition of the directive expired on 30 July
      Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of             2002.
      the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of
      certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the
                                                                         (1) OJ 2001 L 212, p. 24.
      information society (1), or in any event by failing to
      communicate those provisions to the Commission, the
      Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Article 13 of that directive.
—     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                         Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                    of Luxembourg
The period prescribed by the Directive for its transposition                                         Case C-33/04
into national law expired on 22 December 2002.
                                                                                (2004/C 71/22)
(1) OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.
                                                                         An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties on 29 January 2004 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by W. Wils and M. Shotter, acting
                                                                         as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Appeal brought on 24 March 1995 by Henri de Compte against the judgment delivered on 26 January 1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-90/91 and T-62/92 between Henri de Compte and the European Parliament (Case C-90/95 P)

text:
24 . 6 . 95            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 159/ 15
    the appellant in all his duties , grade, step and salary with      Compte , represented by Eric Boigelot, with an address for
    retroactive effect to the date on which the contested              service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
    decision took effect, in accordance with the decision              Rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
    which the Court adopts, and further order the
    respondent to pay to the appellant all his arrears of              The appellant claims that the Court should :
    salary, including the benefit which he receives and are
    due to him from 1 December 1993 until the date of the              1 , declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;
    decision to be adopted , together with interest at the
    annual rate of 8 % from the date on which each                     2 , consequently:
    instalment of salary fell due, and order the respondent in
                                                                            ( a ) annul the contested judgment, save in so far as it
    any event to pay the costs of the two actions ,
                                                                                acknowledges that the appellant has suffered
                                                                                non-material damage for which the respondent is
— order the Commission of the European Communities to                             ordered to pay him compensation in the sum of Bfrs
    pay the entire costs of the two actions .                                     200 000;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         ( b ) adjudicate itself on the dispute and , upholding the
                                                                                appellant's original claims :
Infringement of Community law, in particular :                                    — first, in Case T-90/91 , annul the decision of
                                                                                18 April 1991 by which the appointing
— infringement of Article 33 of the Statute of the Court of                          authority retroactively revoked its decision of
    Justice of the EEC, applicable to the Court of First                             24 January 1991 recognizing the occupational
    Instance of the European Communities by virtue of                                nature of the appellant's disease and decided
    Article 46 of the said Statute, which was inserted therein                       that a different decision should be taken in place
    by Article 7 of the Council Decision of 24 October 1988                          of the said decision of 24 January 1991 in the
    establishing a Court of First Instance of the European                           light of the judgment delivered in Case T-26/89
    Communities; the obligation to state the reasons on                              between the appellant and the European
    which judgments are based requires those reasons, in                             Parliament,     and    annul   the   decision   of
    particular, to be legally admissible , that is to say,                           23 September 1991 rejecting the appellant's
    relevant, free from errors of law or fact and                                    complaint lodged on 4 June 1991 , and
    consistent,                                                                      consequently order the respondent to pay to
                                                                                him the sum of Bfrs 9 147 091 together with
— breach of the general legal principles applying under                              default interest at the annual rate of 10 % from
    Community law, namely, in particular, the principles of                          24 January 1991 ,
    proportionality, of the right to a fair hearing and of
    impartiality, and also of the general legal principle that                    — second, in Case T-62/92, annul the decision of
    all administrative acts must be based on reasons which                           20 January 1992 by which the appointing
    are legally admissible, that is to say, relevant and free                        authority decided that the appellant was not
    from errors of fact and/or law; this means, in particular,                       suffering from an occupational disease within
    that full proof of the facts relied on must be                                   the meaning of the Rules on the Insurance of
    furnished .                                                                      Officials of the European Communities against
                                                                                the risk of Accident and of Occupational
                                                                                Disease, together with the decision of 4 June
(M OJ No C 54 , 4 . 3 . 1995 , p . lé .
                                                                                1992 rejecting the appellant's complaint lodged
                                                                                on 8 April 1992 and notified on 10 April 1992,
                                                                                and consequenly order the respondent to pay to
                                                                                him the sum of Bfrs 9 147 091 together with
                                                                                default interest at the annual rate of 10 % with
                                                                                effect, at all events and subject to all necessary
                                                                                express reservations, from 24 January 1991 ;
Appeal brought on 24 March 1995 by Henri de Compte
against the judgment delivered on 26 January 1995 by the               3 , order the European Parliament to pay the entire costs of
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European               the two actions .
Communities in Joined Cases T-90/91 and T-62/92
 between Henri de Compte and the European Parliament
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                        ( Case C-90/95 P)
                           ( 95/C 159/29 )                             Infringement of Community law, in particular :
                                                                       — infringement of Article 33 of the Statute of the Court of
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 January                     Justice of the EEC, applicable to the Court of First
1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                Instance of the European Communities by virtue of
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-90/91 and                       Article 46 of the said Statute, which was inserted therein
T-62/92 between Henri de Compte and the European                           by Article 7 of the Council Decision of 24 October 1988
Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the                  establishing a Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities on 24 March 1995 by Henri de                          Communities; the obligation to state the reasons on
 ---pagebreak--- No C 159/ 16          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24 . 6 . 95
    which judgments are based requires those reasons, in                  procedural conditions laid down by the national law of
    particular, to be legally admissible, that is to say,                 the Member States concerning claims for reparation of
    relevant, free from errors of law or fact and                         damage on account of failure to implement a
    consistent,                                                           Community directive must be the same as ( or in any
                                                                          event not more unfavourable than) those laid down by
— infringement of the Staff Regulations of officials of the               the national legislator in belatedly implementing the
    European Communities, in particular Article 73 thereof,               Directive itself?
    and of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the
    European Communities against the risk of Accident and            (') OJ No L 283 , 20 . 10 . 1980 , p . 23 .
    of Occupational Disease , in particular Article 3
    thereof,
— breach of the general legal principles applying under
    Community law, namely, in particular, the principles of          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberver
    legal certainty, good faith, the protection of legitimate        waltungsgericht fiir das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen by
                                                                     order of that court of 17 March 1995 in the case of Paul
    expectations and the duty to have regard for the welfare
                                                                     Daut GmbH &c Co KG v. Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises
    and/or interests of officials, of the principle that acts
    should be done within a reasonable time, and also of the                                         Gxitersloh
    principle that all administrative acts must be based on                                     ( Case C-105/95 )
    reasons which are legally admissible, that is to say,                                         ( 95/C 159/31 )
    relevant and free from errors of law and/or fact .
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by an order of the Thirteenth
                                                                     Senate of the Oberverwaltungsgericht fiir das Land
                                                                     Nordrhein-Westfalen ( Higher Administrative Court, North
References for preliminary rulings from the Pretura                  Rhine Westphalia ) of 17 March 1995 , which was received at
Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa by orders of that court          the Court Registry on 31 March 1995 , for a preliminary
of 21 March 1995 in the cases of 1 . Danila Bonifaci and             ruling in the case of Paul Daut GmbH & Co KG v.
Others, 2 . Wanda Berto and Others v. Istituto Nazionale             Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Giitersloh on the following
               délia Previdenza Sociale ( INPS )                     questions:
                ( Cases C-94/95 and C-95/95 )
                                                                     Is it compatible with Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty in
                         ( 95/C 159/30 )                             conjunction with Council Directive 64/433/EEC on health
                                                                     requirements and the marketing of fresh meat (*) ('the fresh
References have been made to the Court of Justice of the             meat Directive ') in the codified version annexed to Council
European Communities by orders of the Pretura                        Directive 91/497/EEC of 29 July 1991 ( 2 ) as amended by
Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa ( District Magistrate's          Directive 92/5/EEC of 10 February 1992 ( 3 ) and in
Court, Bassano del Grappa ) of 21 March 1995 , which were            conjunction with Directive 77/99/EEC on health problems
received at the Court Registry on 24 March 1 995 , for               affecting intra-Community trade in meat products ( 4 ) ('the
preliminary rulings in the cases of 1 . Danila Bonifaci and          meat products Directive') in the version annexed to
Others, 2 . Wanda Berto and Others v. Istituto Nazionale             Directive 92/5/EEC if the respondent — on the basis of
délia Previdenza Sociale ( National Social Welfare                   paragraph 17 ( 1 ) ( 2 ) of the Verordnung iiber die
Institution — INPS ) on the following questions :                    hygienischen           Anforderungen         und     amtlichen
                                                                     Untersuchungen beim Verkehr mit Fleisch ( Regulations on
1 . Must Article 4 ( 2 ) of Council Directive 80/987/EEC ( l )       hygiene requirements and official examinations relating to
     be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may            trade in meat, 'the FlHV') of 30 October 1986 , BGBl 1 1678 ,
     opt to limit the liability of the guarantee institutions to     as last amended by the EWR-Ausfiihrungsgesetz ( EEA
     pay remuneration to a particular period of time — in this       implementation law ) of 27 April 1993 , BGBl I 512, 552 —
     case, 12 months — even in cases where the period in time        objects to the import of frozen mechanically recovered meat
     in question was exceeded not because of inertia                 in the case of an EC-authorized German establishment
     amounting to fault on the part of the employee                  which is in a position to carry out heat treatment within the
     concerned and, in particular, where the employee claims         meaning of the meat products Directive and obtains frozen
     compensation for damage on account of the                       mechanically recovered meat from an EC-authorized
     non-implementation or the belated implementation of             Belgian establishment in accordance with the designation of
     the Directive itself ?                                          the Belgian EC veterinarian in order to subject it to heat
                                                                     treatment within the meaning of the meat products
2 . In the event that question 1 is answered # in the                Directive and further process it, and if not is agreement with
     affirmative, must Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Directive be           the competent German veterinary authority necessary and
     considered valid in the light of the principle of equality      between whom ?
     and non-discrimination ?
                                                                     (J)  OJ No  121 , 29 . 7. 1964 , p . 2012 .
3 . Must paragraph 43 of the Judgment of the Court of                (2 ) OJ No  L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 69 .
                                                                     (3 ) OJ No  L 57, 2 . 3 . 1992 , p . 1 .
     Justice of 19 November 1991 in Joined Cases C-6/90
                                                                     (4 ) OJ No  L 26 , 31 . 1 . 1977, p . 85 .
     and C-9/90 Francovich and Others v. Italian Republic
     be interpreted as meaning that the substantive and


title: Case C-259/06: Action brought on  14 June 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/28

         Action brought on 14 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-259/06)
   (2006/C 178/46)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Maidani and W. Wils, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands
   Form of order sought

               —

               A declaration that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of those measures, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               An order requiring the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be implemented expired on 11 August 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 35, 2003, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 July 1999 in Case C-186/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Círculo do Porto): criminal proceedings against Maria Amélia Nunes, Evangelina de Matos (Financial assistance granted from the European Social Fund - Improper use of funds - Penalties under Community law and national law)

text:
C 333/8                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                         20.11.1999
Articles 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC)            2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
and 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) preclude a Member
State’s legislation under which undertakings established in that State
and exploiting proprietary medicinal products there are charged a             (1) OJ No C 209 of 4.7.1998.
special levy on their pre-tax turnover in certain of those proprietary
medicinal products during the lest tax year before the enactment of
that legislation and are allowed to deduct from the amount payable
only expenditure incurred during the same tax year on research carried
out in the levying State, when it applies to Community undertakings
operating in that State through a secondary place of business.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ No C 252 of 16.8.1997.
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 July 1999
                                                                              in Case C-186/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Tribunal de Cı́rculo do Porto): criminal proceedings
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           against Maria Amélia Nunes, Evangelina de Matos (1)
                                                                              (Financial assistance granted from the European Social Fund
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                              — Improper use of funds — Penalties under Community law
                                                                                and national law)
                            of 8 July 1999
                                                                                (1999/C 333/16)
in Case C-178/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/157/EEC on
batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous
substances — Failure of a Member State to adopt the                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
    programmes provided for by Article 6 of the Directive)                                        in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              In Case C-186/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                           (1999/C 333/15)                                    the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de
                                                                              Cı́rculo (District Court), Oporto (Portugal), for a preliminary
                                                                              ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court
                     (Language of the case: French)                           against Maria Amélia Nunes, Evangelina de Matos — on the
                                                                              interpretation of the provisions of Community law governing
                                                                              the improper use of financial assistance granted from the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        European Social Fund — the Court (First Chamber), composed
                    in the European Court Reports)                            of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Ed-
                                                                              ward and L. Sevón, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
                                                                              R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 1999, in
In Case C-178/98: Commission of the European Communities                      which it has ruled:
(Agents: Götz zur Hausen and Olivier Couvert-Castéra) v
French Republic (Agents: Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and Romain                   1. Community legislation does not classify the improper use of
Nadal) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt                   European Social Fund assistance as a criminal offence.
and/or communicate all the measures necessary to comply
with Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on                         2. Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC) requires the
batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous sub-                       Member States to take all effective measures to sanction conduct
stances (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 38), the French Republic has failed                      which affects the financial interests of the Community. Such
to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court                         measures may include criminal penalties even where the Com-
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of                       munity legislation only provides for civil sanctions. The sanction
Chamber, P. Jann, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward                           provided for must be analogous to those applicable to infringe-
and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass,                      ments of national law of similar nature and importance, and
Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 1999, in which it:                       must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
     all the measures necessary to comply with Article 6 of Council           (1) OJ No C 209 of 4.7.1998.
     Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and
     accumulators containing certain dangerous substances, the French
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article;


title: Case T-339/04: Action brought on 10 August 2004 by Wanadoo S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/53

         Action brought on 10 August 2004 by Wanadoo S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-339/04)
   (2004/C 262/97)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 August 2004 by Wanadoo S.A., established in Issy-les-Moulineaux (France), represented by Hugues Calvet et Marie-Cécile Rameau, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 18 May 2004 ordering the applicant, and all undertakings directly or indirectly controlled by it, to submit to an inspection pursuant to Article 20(4) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 (1);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In support of its action, the applicant submits that by adopting the contested decision the Commission infringed the duty of cooperation with the national courts and authorities pursuant to Article 10 EC and Regulation No 1/2003. According to the applicant, the Commission failed to disclose to the national court which authorised the inspection in question the existence of proceedings pending before the French competition authority concerning the alleged infringements of Article 82 EC by the applicant and of a decision of the same authority of 11 May 2004. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the French competition authority remains in charge of the case and that consequently the Commission should not have intervened in it.
   The applicant further submits that the contested decision infringes the obligation carefully and impartially to examine all relevant evidence in the case, the duty to state reasons and the principle of proportionality. Lastly, it alleges a manifest error of assessment.

      (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 of 4.1.2003, p. 1).


title: Case T-344/08: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Administrative file relating to cartel proceedings — Refusal of access — Exception relating to protection of the purpose of investigations — Exception concerning the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Exception concerning the protection of the decision-making process — Obligation of the institution concerned to carry out a concrete, individual examination of the content of the documents covered by the request for access)

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission
   (Case T-344/08) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Administrative file relating to cartel proceedings - Refusal of access - Exception relating to protection of the purpose of investigations - Exception concerning the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception concerning the protection of the decision-making process - Obligation of the institution concerned to carry out a concrete, individual examination of the content of the documents covered by the request for access)
   2012/C 194/27
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: A. Bach and A. Hahn, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by P. Costa de Oliveira, A. Antoniadis and O. Weber and subsequently by A. Bouquet, P. Costa de Oliveira and A. Antoniadis, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: K. Petkovska, S. Johannesson and A. Falk, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Siemens AG (Berlin and Munich, Germany) (represented by: I. Brinker, C. Steinle and M. Holm-Hadulla, lawyers); and ABB Ltd (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented: initially by J. Lawrence, Solicitor, and E. Whiteford, Barrister, and subsequently by J. Lawrence and D. Howe, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision SG.E.3/MV/psi D(2008) 4931 of 16 June 2008 refusing access to the case-file in Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision SG.E.3/MV/psi D(2008) 4931 of 16 June 2008 refusing access to the case-file in Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden, ABB Ltd and Siemens AG to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case C-43/17 P: Appeal brought on 25 January 2017 by Liam Jenkinson against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 November 2016 in Case T-602/15 Liam Jenkinson v European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, European Commission, Eulex Kosovo

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/36

         Appeal brought on 25 January 2017 by Liam Jenkinson against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 November 2016 in Case T-602/15 Liam Jenkinson v European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, European Commission, Eulex Kosovo

   (Case C-43/17 P)
   (2017/C 104/52)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Liam Jenkinson (represented by: N. de Montigny, J.-N. Louis, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, European Commission, Eulex Kosovo

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of the General Court of 9 November 2016 in Case T-602/15 in so far as it dismisses the action brought by the appellant and orders him to pay the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               adjudicate on the action;

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant disputes the General Court’s having declared itself to have jurisdiction in relation only to a dispute based on the latest fixed-term contract signed by the appellant.
   He also disputes, even supposing the General Court’s reasoning in that regard were correct, quod non, the fact that the General Court did not rule on several of his requests based on the termination of the contractual relationship at issue and thus on the latest fixed-term contract. The illegality of the order under appeal is apparent from the conciseness of the reasoning, which is so succinct that it does not make it possible to understand how the General Court could, without analysing the merits of the case, conclude that it had no jurisdiction, with the exception of the dispute relating to the latest fixed term contract, solely on the basis of the existence of an arbitration clause even though the appellant disputed the validity and legality of such a clause.
   The appellant also disputes the failure to take into account his entire argument as to the existence of wrongful conduct on the part of the institutions relating to the lack of legal framework offering the applicant and all the personnel of rule of law missions established by the Union guarantees that their most fundamental social rights will be respected, including the right of effective access to a court and right to a fair trial.
   In support of his appeal, the appellant consequently invokes the General Court’s infringement:

               —

               of applicable EU law for the determination of the law applicable to contractual disputes;

               —

               of provisions of Belgian employment law;

               —

               of minimum requirements on fixed-term work applicable at Community level;

               —

               of the rights enshrined by the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

               —

               of the obligation to state reasons;

               —

               of the prohibition on ruling ultra petita.


title: Case C-323/06 P: Appeal brought on 21 July 2006 by Theodoros Kallianos against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) on 17 May 2006 in Case T-93/04 Kallianos v Commission

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/27

         Appeal brought on 21 July 2006 by Theodoros Kallianos against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) on 17 May 2006 in Case T-93/04 Kallianos v Commission

   (Case C-323/06 P)
   (2006/C 224/51)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Theodoros Kallianos (represented by: G. Archambeau, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 17 May 2006 in Case T-93/04 Kallianos v Commission of the European Communities in all material respects and, by doing what the Court of First Instance of the E. C. ought to have done:

                           (a)

                           annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 28 November 2003 replying to the complaint brought by Mr Kallianos under No R/335/03 of 2 July 2003;

                           (b)

                           call upon the Commission to repay to the appellant the whole of the payments and amounts it unjustifiably withheld in respect of the remuneration payable to the appellant from the date on which he was granted a divorce by judgment of the Court of First Instance, Athens, on 8 March 1999, including indexation of the amount overpaid by way of maintenance pursuant to the unilateral decision of 18 September 2002 adopted by the Commission, together with interest at the statutory rate from the date when amounts were first withheld from the appellant's monthly salary;

                           (c)

                           order the Commission to pay the costs of effecting service, including the costs of translating the Greek judgments into French, documents which were in any event made available to the Commission in good time, amounting to EUR 1 500, together with the costs incurred by the appellant as a result of being obliged to deal repeatedly with the Commission's arguments, assessed at 20 % of the sum ordered to be paid in the order for costs or other such sum as the Court deems equitable;

                           (d)

                           order the Commission of the European Communities to pay all of the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By his appeal, the appellant maintains, firstly, that the Community institutions lack competence to act in the place of the Member States or to interpret their national law in the context of divorce proceedings.
   Secondly, the appellant challenges the argument that the effect of a divorce decree is not automatically to terminate interim measures ordered by a court in interlocutory proceedings and that such a decree must be served by writ by a court officer on the Commission in order that the latter may, in particular, consider itself released from its obligation to make deductions from the salary of one spouse (an official) for the benefit of the other spouse. In that regard, the appellant submits, in essence, that the Commission is not a third party seised of the matter or an ordinary employer, given that, under the Staff Regulations, all officials are under an obligation to provide information and to be transparent with regard to their personal circumstances. He also argues that an order awarding maintenance to a spouse in the course of divorce proceedings is automatically terminated on pronouncement of decree absolute and that it is therefore sufficient that the Commission is simply aware of that decree for the maintenance obligations to cease without there being any need for such a decree to be served by writ by a court officer.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  1 December 2005  in Joined Cases C-394/04 and C-395/05, References for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias, Diagnostiko & Therapeftiko Kentro Athinon-Ygeia AE v Ipourgos Ikonomikon (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13A(1)(b) — Exemptions — Activities closely related to hospital and medical care — Provision of telephone services and hiring out of televisions to in-patients — Provision of beds and meals to persons accompanying in-patients)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 1 December 2005
   in Joined Cases C-394/04 and C-395/05, References for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias, Diagnostiko & Therapeftiko Kentro Athinon-Ygeia AE v Ipourgos Ikonomikon (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13A(1)(b) - Exemptions - Activities closely related to hospital and medical care - Provision of telephone services and hiring out of televisions to in-patients - Provision of beds and meals to persons accompanying in-patients)
   (2006/C 36/28)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Joined Cases C-394/04 and C-395/04: references for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece), made by decisions of 16 June 2004, received at the Court on 17 September 2004, in the proceedings between Diagnostiko & Therapeftiko Kentro Athinon-Ygeia AE and Ipourgos Ikonomikon — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 December 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The supply of telephone services and the hiring out of televisions to in-patients by persons covered by Article 13A(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, and the supply by those persons of beds and meals to people accompanying in-patients do not amount, as a general rule, to activities closely related to hospital and medical care within the meaning of that provision. It can be otherwise only if those supplies are essential to achieve the therapeutic objectives sought by the hospital and medical care and their basic purpose is not to obtain additional income for the supplier by carrying out transactions which are in direct competition with those of commercial enterprises liable for value added tax.

               2.

               It is for the referring court, taking account of all of the specific facts in the litigation before it and, if appropriate, of the content of the medical prescriptions drawn up for the patients concerned, to determine whether the services supplied satisfy those conditions.

      (1)  OJ C 273 of 06.11.2004.


title: Case T-43/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo v Commission
   (Case T-43/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 048/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Singapore Airlines Ltd (Singapore, Singapore); and Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd (Singapore) (represented initially by J. Kallaugher and J. Poitras, Solicitors, J. Ruiz Calzado and É. Barbier de La Serre, lawyers, and subsequently by J. Kallaugher, J. Poitras and J. Ruiz Calzado)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Noë, N. von Lingen and J. Bourke, and subsequently by S. Noë, N. von Lingen and A. Dawes, and lastly by A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and by C. Brown, Barrister)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and M. Simm, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, for the annulment of or a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Singapore Airlines Ltd and Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.