title: Appeal brought on 25 May 1998 by Anthony Goldstein against the order made on 16 March 1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-235/95, between Anthony Goldstein and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-199/98 P)

text:
C 234/18              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25.7.98
The Commission claims that the Court should:                        ruling in the case of 1) Mr G. Everson and 2) Mr T. J.
                                                                    Barrass against 1) Secretary of State for Trade and
                                                                    Industry and 2) Bell Lines Ltd (in liquidation), on the
Ð declare that, by not taking the necessary measures to             following question:
     comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of
     23 March 1995 in Case C-365/93 (1) and, in particular,         Where
     by not having yet adopted, and communicated to the
     Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative           (i)   an employee works in one Member State for an
     provisions necessary to comply fully with Council                    employer incorporated in another Member State; and
     Directive 89/48/EEC (2) of 21 December 1988 on a
     general system for the recognition of higher-education         (ii) the employer has a branch in the Member State in
     diplomas awarded on completion of professional                       which the employee works, and that branch is
     education and training of at least three years'                      registered under the national provisions implementing
     duration, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its             Council Directive 89/666/EEC (1) (the Eleventh
     obligations under Article 171 of the EC Treaty;                      Company Law Directive), although it is not
                                                                          incorporated and does not have legal personality
Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                           separate from that of the employer, in that Member
                                                                          State; and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 (iii) both the employer and the employee are required to
                                                                          make social security contributions in the Member
                                                                          State in which the employee works;
Under Article 171 of the EC Treaty, if a Member State
fails to take, within the time-limit laid down by the               under Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC (2) of
Commission, the necessary measures to comply with a                 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the
judgment in which the Court has found that the Member               Member States relating to the protection of employees in
State in question failed to fulfil its obligations under the        the event of the insolvency of their employer, which
Treaty, the Commission may bring the case before the                guarantee institution is responsible for the payments
Court of Justice. In so doing the Commission is to specify          thereby due; is it
the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be
paid by the Member State concerned which it considers               (a) the guarantee institution in the Member State in
appropriate in the circumstances. The failure fully to                    which insolvency proceedings have been commenced,
transpose Directive 89/48/EEC into Greek law constitutes                  or
a breach of the fundamental principles of the free
movement of persons and the freedom to provide services,
                                                                    (b) the guarantee institution in the Member State in
and three years have already passed since the Court gave
                                                                          which the employee works and in which the
judgment in Case C-365/93. In view of the seriousness and
                                                                          employer has a permanent commercial presence?'
duration of the breach and the need to ensure that the
sanction has a deterrent effect, the Commission invites the
                                                                    (1) Eleventh Council Directive 89/666/EEC of 21 December 1989
Court to impose a penalty payment of ECU 41 000 per                     concerning disclosure requirements in respect of branches
day from the day on which the Hellenic Republic is                      opened in a Member State by certain types of company
notified of the judgment of the Court in this case until the            governed by the law of another State (OJ L 395 of
day on which the breach ceases.                                         30.12.1989, p. 36).
                                                                    (2) OJ L 283 of 20.10.1980, p. 23.
(1) Case C-365/93 Commission v Greece [1995] ECR I-499.
(2) OJ L 19 of 24.1.1989, p. 16.
                                                                    Appeal brought on 25 May 1998 by Anthony Goldstein
                                                                    against the order made on 16 March 1998 by the Third
                                                                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Industrial                Communities in Case T-235/95, between Anthony
Tribunal, Bristol, by order of that court of 6 May 1998,                   Goldstein and the Commission of the European
in the case of 1) Mr G. Everson and 2) Mr T. J. Barrass                                       Communities
against 1) Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and 2)                                (Case C-199/98 P)
                Bell Lines Ltd (in liquidation)
                                                                                (98/C 234/36)
                       (Case C-198/98)
                        (98/C 234/35)                               An appeal against the order made on 16 March 1998 by
                                                                    the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                    European Communities in Case T-235/95, between
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the              Anthony Goldstein and the Commission of the European
European Communities by an order of the Industrial                  Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of
Tribunal, Bristol, of 6 May 1998, which was received at             the European Communities on 25 May 1998 by Anthony
the Court Registry on 25 May 1998, for a preliminary                Goldstein, a medical practitioner, represented by Mr
 ---pagebreak--- 25.7.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 234/19
Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor, of Merriman White,              on 28 May 1998 by the Commission of the European
solicitors, 3 King's Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London              Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of its Legal
EC4Y 7DJ.                                                          Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
The appellant claims that the Court should:                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Ð set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of
    16 March 1998 in Case T-235/95 Goldstein v.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
    Commission (not published in the European Court
    Reports) in which the Court dismissed the application
    for an order seeking the annulment of the
    Commission's decision of 16 October 1995 refusing to           1. declare that, by requiring, pursuant to the second
    adopt interim measures to protect the applicant's                  paragraph of Article 3(3)(c) and (d) of the Royal
    legitimate interests.                                              Decree on Air Traffic of 15 March 1954, that
                                                                       Community operators be resident or established for
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs including those                one year in Belgium in order to register their aircraft
    in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.             there and by refusing to authorize flights requested by
                                                                       Community operators, thus unjustifiably or excessively
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    hindering the temporary or permanent provision of
                                                                       services in the field of air traffic other than for
The appellant maintains that no Advocate General was                   transport, Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
heard by the Court of First Instance and that the Court of             under Articles 6, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty;
First Instance has thus breached Articles 111 and 114 of
its Rules of Procedure.
                                                                   2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
By order of the Court of First Instance of 10 March 1997,
the decision on the plea of inadmissibility was reserved for
the final judgment on the ground that in the circumstances
of the case the procedure on the merits should be                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
continued before a decision was taken on the plea of
inadmissibility raised by the defendant.
                                                                   Ð Infringement of Article 59 of the EC Treaty: in dealing
The appellant asserts that the Court of First Instance has             with applications for flight authorizations from certain
no power to invalidate a decision of the Court of First                Community operators wishing to provide aerial
Instance unless exceptional situations exist and that, in              photography services over Belgium, the competent
ruling in the plea of admissibility without examining the              authorities, after having moreover explained that in
merits of the case, the Court of First Instance robbed him             any event authorization could be granted only for a
of a hearing and a report of the Judge-Rapporteur                      limited period and only for very specific purposes,
containing the factual and legal arguments and thereby                 ended up by automatically refusing such authorization.
constituted a denial of justice in so far as he had a                  The justification based on an absence of reciprocity
legitimate expectation to obtain a judgment in accordance              reveals a clear attitude on the part of the
with the Treaty obligations of the Court of First Instance.            administration which is contrary to the Community
                                                                       principle of non-discrimination. Furthermore, the
Furthermore the appellant claims that the contested order              principle of the freedom to provide services requires,
distorted the clear sense of the evidence in order to                  moreover, that decisions, pursuant to Article 51 of the
conceal the existence of a medical licence fraud. The                  Royal Decree of 15 March 1954, as to the legal,
appellant also claims that the contested order                         financial and technical standing of a foreign individual
demonstrates that the Court of First Instance is guilty of             or undertaking should be taken by the Member State
misuse of power.                                                       of origin and that, therefore, the assessment by the
                                                                       authorities of the host Member State may not
The appellant asserts that the reasoning in the contested              disregard the requirements which the same operator
order is legally defective as it is not based on an                    already fulfils in its country of origin.
objectively determined situation in fact and law.
                                                                   Ð Infringement of Articles 6 and 52 of the EC Treaty:
                                                                       the provisions of the Royal Decree of 1954 cited in the
                                                                       application are not compatible with Articles 6 and 52
Action brought on 28 May 1998 by the Commission of                     of the EC Treaty inasmuch as they discriminate
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                        against foreign natural and legal persons and hinder
                           Belgium                                     their establishment by categorically precluding the
                                                                       registration of any aircraft belonging to foreign
                       (Case C-203/98)
                                                                       persons or companies during the first year of residence
                        (98/C 234/37)                                  in Belgium.
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities


title: Case T-202/10 RENV: Order of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — Stichting Woonlinie and Others v Commission (State aid — Social housing — Scheme of aid granted to housing corporations — Existing aid — Decision accepting Member State’s commitments — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/15

         Order of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — Stichting Woonlinie and Others v Commission
   (Case T-202/10 RENV) (1)

   ((State aid - Social housing - Scheme of aid granted to housing corporations - Existing aid - Decision accepting Member State’s commitments - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2015/C 221/21)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Stichting Woonlinie (Woudrichem, Netherlands); Stichting Allee Wonen (Roosendaal, Netherlands); Woningstichting Volksbelang (Wijk bij Duurstede, Netherlands); Stichting WoonInvest (Leidschendam-Voorburg, Netherlands); Stichting Woonstede (Ede, Netherlands) (represented initially by P. Glazener and E. Henny and subsequently by P. Glazener, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal and S. Noë, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Belgium (represented initially by T. Materne and J.-C. Halleux and subsequently by J.-C. Halleux, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN) (Voorburg, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 — Netherlands — Existing and special project aid to housing corporations.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Orders Stichting Woonlinie, Stichting Allee Wonen, Woningstichting Volksbelang, Stichting WoonInvest and Stichting Woonstede to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium and Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN) to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case C-280/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 6 April 2000 in the case of Altmark Trans GmbH and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg v Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH, interested party: Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

text:
C 273/8              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       23.9.2000
    The loan by the Land of Brandenburg of DEM 70,3                   —    Breach of the principle of legal certainty: the decision is
    million cannot be treated differently from corresponding               not definite enough, in that it claims aid back from every
    payments by the Treuhandanstalt. Provision of DEM 35                   undertaking ‘to which the assets of ... (SMI), ... (SiMI) or ...
    million finance by the Land of Brandenburg was promised                (MD&D) have been or will be transferred in a form
    as part of the privatisation agreement. That measure in                intended to evade the consequences of the decision’.
    the framework of privatisation is justified under the
    Treuhand scheme because the promise was a component
    and a condition of the privatisation agreement and it
    cannot matter which State source payments which were              Breach of the principle of proportionality.
    permitted under the Treuhand scheme were actually
    made from. After taking over the shares from the
    Treuhandanstalt, the Land of Brandenburg gave a further
    DEM 35,3 million as a loan. That constituted a contract
    management measure on the part of the Land of Branden-
    burg, which was permitted in accordance with the
    Treuhand scheme, and in any event capable of being
    approved. The Commission did not, however, examine
    the compatibility of the loan against that background.
Recovery of the aid                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesver-
                                                                      waltungsgericht by order of that court of 6 April 2000 in
                                                                      the case of Altmark Trans GmbH and Regierungspräsidi-
—   Lack of competence of the Commission and exceeding its            um Magdeburg v Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark
    powers: the order to recover the aid from third parties           GmbH, interested party: Oberbundesanwalt beim Bun-
    who did not receive the aid and had no opportunity to                                  desverwaltungsgericht
    take part in the procedure constitutes exceeding of its
    powers by the Commission. The Commission has no
    jurisdiction to issue such an order (lack of competence of                                  (Case C-280/00)
    the Commission, second paragraph of Article 230 EC).
    Under Article 88 EC the Member State has exclusive
    competence to recover aid, and the Commission does not                                      (2000/C 273/12)
    have jurisdiction under Article 5(2) EC.
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    The Commission furthermore by the contested decision              European Communities by an order of the Bundesverwaltungs-
    intervenes impermissibly in the legal order of the Member         gericht (Federal Administrative Court) of 6 April 2000, which
    State, since the instruction to make recovery from                was received at the Court Registry on 14 July 2000, for a
    third parties disapplies the provisions of the judicially         preliminary ruling in the case of Altmark Trans GmbH and
    supervised insolvency procedure.                                  Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg v Nahverkehrsgesellschaft
                                                                      Altmark GmbH, interested party: Oberbundesanwalt beim
                                                                      Bundesverwaltungsgericht, on the following question:
    The decision is also unlawful because the Commission
    does not state what specific conduct or what specific
    measures could constitute circumvention of the claim
    for recovery and restricts itself instead to groundless           Do Articles 73 EC and 87 EC, read in conjunction with
    suppositions, allegations and fears. The Commission also          Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, (1) as amended by Regulation
    misunderstands the nature of the German insolvency                (EEC) No 1893/91, (2) preclude the application of a national
    procedure, which on the basis of judicial control does not        provision which permits licences to operate regular local
    allow unlawful actions to take place without sanctions in         public transport services to be awarded in respect of services
    national law. In the present case the assumption that the         completely dependent on public grants without regard being
    insolvency administrator carried out the movements of             had to Sections II, III and IV of the abovementioned regulation?
    assets alleged by the Commission (and thereby not only
    incurred personal liability but possibly even committed a
    criminal offence) is not tenable.
                                                                      (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (I), p. 276.
                                                                      (2) OJ No L 169 of 29.6.1991, p. 1.
—   Unlawful extension of the character of recipient on the
    ground of alleged evasion of the recovery of the aid: the
    contested decision also infringes Article 87(1) EC, since
    there was no benefit to the undertakings not involved in
    the procedure, not even indirectly by means of any
    misapplication of aid.


title: Decisions adopted by the Court at its meeting on 10 October 2000

text:
4.11.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 316/1
                                                                    I
                                                              (Information)
                                                  COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
Assumption of duties by new Judges of the Court of                      Decisions adopted by the Court at its meeting on
                              Justice                                                         10 October 2000
                        (2000/C 316/01)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/03)
Following their appointment as Judges of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities by decision of the
                                                                        The Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted
representatives of the Governments of the Member States of
                                                                        the following decisions at its meeting on 10 October 2000:
the European Communities of 26 July 2000 (1), for the period
from 7 October 2000 to 6 October 2006, Mr von Bahr, Mr da
Cunha Rodrigues and Mr Timmermans took their oaths before
the Court on 6 October 2000.
                                                                        Assignment of Judges von Bahr, da Cunha Rodrigues and
Following their appointment as Advocates General of the                 Timmermans
Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of
the representatives of the Governments of the Member States
of the European Communities of 26 July 2000 (1), for the                The Court decided to assign Judges von Bahr and Timmermans
period from 7 October 2000 to 6 October 2006, Mr Tizzano,               to the Fourth and Fifth Chambers and Judge da Cunha
Mr Geelhoed and Ms Stix-Hackl took their oaths before the               Rodrigues to the Third and Sixth Chambers.
Court on 6 October 2000.
(1) OJ L 199 of 5.8.2000, p. 81.
                                                                        Appointment of Presidents of Chambers
                                                                        In accordance with Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the
                                                                        Court has appointed for a period of one year starting on
                                                                        7 October 2000:
      Election of the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        —    Judge Wathelet as President of the First Chamber,
                        (2000/C 316/02)
                                                                        —    Judge Skouris as President of the Second Chamber,
At their meeting on 10 October 2000, the Judges of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities elected Judge
Rodrı́guez Iglesias as President of the Court of Justice pursuant       —    Judge Gulmann as President of the Third and Sixth
to Article 7(1) of the Rules of Procedure, for the period from               Chambers,
7 October 2000 to 6 October 2003.
                                                                        —    Judge La Pergola as President of the Fourth and Fifth
                                                                             Chamber.
 ---pagebreak--- C 316/2                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.11.2000
Composition of the Chambers                                             (b) second, the Judges of the other small Chamber, in the
                                                                              same order.
1.     The composition of the Chambers for the same period
has been determined as follows:                                         For each case, the large Chamber shall be composed of:
                                                                        —     the President,
—     First Chamber
                                                                        —     the Judge-Rapporteur,
      Mr Wathelet, President of the Chamber,
                                                                        —     three Judges designated in the order set out in the relevant
      Mr Jann and Mr Sevón, Judges.                                          list; the starting-point on that list shall be moved down
                                                                              one name at each general meeting.
—     Second Chamber
      Mr Skouris, President of the Chamber,                             Replacement of a Judge or Judges prevented from attending
                                                                        shall be in the order set out in the list. However, should the
      Mr Schintgen and Ms Colneric, Judges.                             President of a large Chamber be prevented from sitting, he
                                                                        shall be replaced preferably by the President of the small
—     Third Chamber                                                     Chamber.
      Mr Gulmann, President of the Chamber,                             If the Court, or a Chamber, considers that a number of cases
                                                                        should be heard and determined together (whether or not they
      Mr Puissochet, Ms Macken and Mr da Cunha Rodrigues,               are formally joined), the composition of the bench shall be
      Judges.                                                           that determined for the first of the cases discussed at a general
                                                                        meeting.
—     Fourth Chamber
                                                                        4.     For the period ending on 6 October 2001, the lists
      Mr La Pergola, President of the Chamber,
                                                                        referred to above are as follows:
      Mr Edward, Mr von Bahr and Mr Timmermans, Judges.                 —     Third Chamber
—     Fifth Chamber                                                           (President: Mr Gulmann)
      Mr La Pergola, President of the Chamber,                                Ms Macken and Mr da Cunha Rodrigues, Judges.
      Mr Wathelet, Mr Edward, Mr Jann, Mr Sevón, Mr von                —     Fourth Chamber
      Bahr and Mr Timmermans, Judges.
                                                                              (President: Mr La Pergola)
—     Sixth Chamber
                                                                              Mr Edward, Mr von Bahr and Mr Timmermans, Judges.
      Mr Gulmann, President of the Chamber,
                                                                        —     Fifth Chamber
      Mr Skouris, Mr Puissochet, Mr Schintgen, Ms Macken,
      Ms Colneric and Mr da Cunha Rodrigues, Judges.                          (President: Mr La Pergola)
                                                                              Mr Edward, Mr von Bahr, Mr Timmermans, Mr Jann,
2.     For each case assigned to them, the Third and Fourth                   Mr Sevón and Mr Wathelet, Judges.
Chambers (to each of which four Judges are attached) shall be
composed of the President of the Chamber, the Judge-                    —     Sixth Chamber
Rapporteur and a third Judge designated in the order set out
in a list which corresponds to the order of seniority. At each                (President: Mr Gulmann)
general meeting the starting-point on that list shall be moved
down one name.                                                                Mr Puissochet, Ms Macken, Mr da Cunha Rodrigues,
                                                                              Mr Schintgen, Mr Skouris and Ms Colneric, Judges.
3.     For the purposes of determining the five Judges who are          Appointment of the First Advocate General
to sit in each case assigned to a large Chamber, that is to say,
the Fifth and Sixth Chambers (to each of which seven Judges             In accordance with Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the
are attached), a list shall be drawn up for the judicial year. That     Court of Justice appointed Advocate General D. Ruiz-Jarabo
list shall comprise all the Judges of the Chamber, apart from           Colomer as First Advocate General for a period of one year
the President, in the following order:                                  starting on 7 October 2000.
(a)   first, the Judges of the small Chamber composed of four
      Judges, in order of seniority;


title: Case T-356/15: Action brought on 6 July 2015 — Austria v Commission

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/14

         Action brought on 6 July 2015 — Austria v Commission
   (Case T-356/15)
   (2015/C 337/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, Agent, and H. Kristoferitsch, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision (EU) 2015/658 of 8 October 2014 on the aid measure SA.34947 (2013/C) (ex 2013/N) which the United Kingdom is planning to implement for support to the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (notified under document C(2014) 7142);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Incorrect application of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Erroneous market definition and incorrect assumption of market failures
               The applicant asserts that the Commission wrongly authorised the planned State aid pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU in so far as it wrongly accepts the existence of a separate market for nuclear energy and — also wrongly — assumes that there is a market failure on that market.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Incorrect assessment of the nuclear power station as ‘new technology’
               In that regard, it is claimed that the decision is also void because the Commission wrongly relies on the fact that the technology at issue is new technology.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Incorrect application of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Incorrect assumption of the existence of investment aid
               In the context of the third plea in law, the applicant asserts that the Commission wrongly assumes that the envisaged measures are mere investment aid; in actual fact, the aid far exceeds mere investment aid and constitutes operating aid, which is unlawful according to the case-law of the Courts of the European Union.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: Incorrect application of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Lack of an objective of common interest
               In that regard, the applicant submits that the contested decision is also void in so far as — contrary to the Commission’s view — there is no common interest pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, which is needed for the authorisation of the aid.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: Inadequate definition of the aid
               The Republic of Austria bases its action on the fact that the Commission defined the aid in a completely inadequate manner.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law: Incorrect application of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Inappropriateness of the measures
               In the applicant’s view, the explanations of the Commission as regards the appropriateness of the aid are inaccurate and incomprehensible, which also makes the decision void.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law: Infringement of the basic requirements of tendering procedures
               In the context of this plea in law, the applicant contends that the aid also should not have been authorised because the United Kingdom did not carry out a public procurement procedure and infringed the EU law principles of equal treatment and transparency.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law: Infringement of the Guarantees Notice (1)

               In that regard, the applicant complains that the State guarantee authorised as part of the State aid was not examined on the basis of the criteria of the Guarantees Notice.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law: Failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU
               In addition, the Commission infringed its obligation to state reasons in many ways and in a very serious manner.

               10.

               Tenth plea in law: Infringement of the right to be heard
               Lastly, the applicant also alleges an infringement of the right to be heard.

      (1)  Commission Notice on the application of Articles 87 [EC] and 88 [EC] to State aid in the form of guarantees (OJ 2008 C 155, p. 10).


C 79/42                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18.3.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Removal from the register of Case T-317/97 to T-508/97 (1)
The applicant, who has been found guilty of a criminal offence                                    (2000/C 79/88)
by the courts, contests the disciplinary measure of removal
from post ordered against him or her by the appointing
authority.                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In support of his or her arguments, the applicant claims that:            By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Third
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
— the general principles applicable to disciplinary procedures            Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
    and, specifically, to the rights of the defence were infringed.       Case T-317/97 to T-508/97: David Manuel Abreu and Others
    The applicant takes the view in his respect that the decision         v Council of the European Union and Commission of the
    in question emanates specifically from the Director General           European Communities.
    for Personnel and the Administration who, as such, had
    initiated the disciplinary procedure and drawn up the
    report for the Disciplinary Board, despite forming part of            (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
    the Disciplinary Committee himself. It is contrary to the
    abovementioned principles that a single body should
    combine the duties of a judge, set proceedings in motion
    and carry out the inquiry preceding the hearing. Moreover,
    throughout the disciplinary proceedings, the applicant’s
    request that they be made public was systematically
    refused.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-125/98 (1)
— the decision ordering the disciplinary measure was arbi-
    trary in nature or, at least contained a manifest error of                                    (2000/C 79/89)
    assessment inasmuch as, since it considered the conduct of
    which the applicant stood accused to have been proved,
    the Disciplinary Board, and subsequently the appointing                                  (Language of the case: French)
    authority, restricted themselves to referring to the judg-
    ment made by the Belgian criminal courts, whereas it is for
    the disciplinary authorities to verify for themselves whether         By order of 7 December 1999, the President of the Fifth
    the conduct with which the applicant is charged is proven.            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
— the Disciplinary Board was not properly constituted since               Case T-125/98: Luc Veron v Commission of the European
    some of the members called upon to participate in the                 Communities.
    appointing authority’s opinion had not been able to take
    an active part in all the debates.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
        Removal from the register of Case T-96/96 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-189/98 (1)
                          (2000/C 79/87)
                                                                                (2000/C 79/90)
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
By order of 31 January 2000, the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Second
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-96/96: Telecom Italia SpA (anc. Società Finanziaria                Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Telefonica per Azioni) v Commission of the European Com-                  Case T-189/98: Commune de Sassuolo v Commission of the
munities.                                                                 European Communities.
(1) OJ C 233 of 10.8.1996.                                                (1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.


title: Case C-536/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde v Donau Chemie AG, Donauchem GmbH, DC Druck-Chemie Süd GmbH & Co KG, Brenntag Austria Holding GmbH, Brenntag CEE GmbH, ASK Chemicals GmbH, formerly Ashland-Südchemie-Kernfest GmbH, ASK Chemicals Austria GmbH, formerly Ashland Südchemie Hantos GmbH (Competition — Access to the file — Judicial proceedings relating to fines for infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Third-party undertakings wishing to bring an action for damages — National rules making access to the file subject to the consent of all parties to the proceedings — Principle of effectiveness)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde v Donau Chemie AG, Donauchem GmbH, DC Druck-Chemie Süd GmbH & Co KG, Brenntag Austria Holding GmbH, Brenntag CEE GmbH, ASK Chemicals GmbH, formerly Ashland-Südchemie-Kernfest GmbH, ASK Chemicals Austria GmbH, formerly Ashland Südchemie Hantos GmbH
   (Case C-536/11) (1)

   (Competition - Access to the file - Judicial proceedings relating to fines for infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Third-party undertakings wishing to bring an action for damages - National rules making access to the file subject to the consent of all parties to the proceedings - Principle of effectiveness)
   2013/C 252/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde

      Defendants: Donau Chemie AG, Donauchem GmbH, DC Druck-Chemie Süd GmbH & Co KG, Brenntag Austria Holding GmbH, Brenntag CEE GmbH, ASK Chemicals GmbH, formerly Ashland-Südchemie-Kernfest GmbH, ASK Chemicals Austria GmbH, formerly Ashland Südchemie Hantos GmbH

      In the presence of: Bundeskartellamt, Verband Druck und Medientechnik

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Wien — Interpretation of provisions of European Union law relating to cartels — Access to the file — National legislation whereby, in administrative proceedings relating to competition, access to the file by third parties is subject to the consent of all parties to the proceedings and there is no weighing of all competing interests, whereas such weighing does take place in respect of access to the file in comparable civil and criminal proceedings

      Operative part of the judgment

   European Union law, in particular the principle of effectiveness, precludes a provision of national law under which access to documents forming part of the file relating to national proceedings concerning the application of Article 101 TFEU, including access to documents made available under a leniency programme, by third parties who are not party to those proceedings with a view to bringing an action for damages against participants in an agreement or concerted practice is made subject solely to the consent of all the parties to those proceedings, without leaving any possibility for the national courts of weighing up the interests involved.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.


title: Case C-349/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Sopropé — Organizações de Calçado Lda v Fazenda Pública (Community Customs Code — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence — Post-clearance recovery of customs import duties)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/16

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Sopropé — Organizações de Calçado Lda v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-349/07) (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence - Post-clearance recovery of customs import duties)
   (2009/C 44/25)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Referring court
   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Sopropé — Organizações de Calçado Lda

      Respondent: Fazenda Pública

      Intervening party: Ministério Público
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Compatibility with Community law and the principle of the rights of the defence of national provisions of fiscal administrative procedure concerning the periods for the exercise of the taxpayer's right to a hearing — Administrative procedure for the post-clearance payment of import duties on goods from the far east
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               With regard to recovery of a customs debt for the purpose of effecting post-clearance recovery of customs import duties, a period of 8 to 15 days allowed to an importer suspected of having committed a customs offence in which to submit its observations complies in principle with the requirements of Community law.

               2.

               It is for the national court before which the case has been brought to ascertain, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case, whether the period actually allowed to that importer made it possible for it to be given a proper hearing by the customs authorities.

               3.

               The national court must also ascertain whether, in the light of the period which elapsed between the time when the authorities concerned received the importer's observations and the date on which they took their decision, they can be deemed to have taken due account of the observations sent to them.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Case T-291/09: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2012 — Carrols v OHIM — Gambettola (Pollo Tropical CHICKEN ON THE GRILL) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative Community mark Pollo Tropical CHICKEN ON THE GRILL — Absolute grounds for refusal — No bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2012 — Carrols v OHIM — Gambettola (Pollo Tropical CHICKEN ON THE GRILL)
   (Case T-291/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative Community mark Pollo Tropical CHICKEN ON THE GRILL - Absolute grounds for refusal - No bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 73/51
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Carrols Corp. (Dover, Delaware, United States) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Giulio Gambettola (Los Realejos, Spain) (represented by: F. Brandolini Kujman, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2009 (Case R 632/2008-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Carrols Corp. and Mr Giulio Gambettola.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Carrols Corp. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 October 2004 in Case T-45/01: Stephen Sanders and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Staff employed at the JET Joint Undertaking — Equal treatment — Failure to confer status of temporary servant — Article 152 EA — Reasonable time — Material damage sustained)

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 5 October 2004
   in Case T-45/01: Stephen Sanders and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Staff employed at the JET Joint Undertaking - Equal treatment - Failure to confer status of temporary servant - Article 152 EA - Reasonable time - Material damage sustained)
   (2004/C 314/31)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-45/01: Stephen Sanders, residing in Oxfordshire (United Kingdom), and the 94 applicants whose names appear in the annex, represented by P. Roth, QC, I. Hutton and A. Howard, Barristers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and L. Escobar Guerrero, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by Council of the European Union (Agent: initially by J.-P. Hix and A. Pilette, and subsequently by J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen) — application for damages for the material loss sustained as a result of the failure to recruit the applicants as temporary servants of the Communities during the time they worked at the Joint European Torus (JET) Joint Undertaking — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Jaeger and H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Orders the Commission to pay damages for the financial loss sustained by each of the applicants as a result of the fact that they were not recruited as temporary servants of the Communities during the time they worked at the Joint European Torus (JET) Joint Undertaking;

               2.

               Orders the parties to produce to the Court of First Instance within six months of this judgment an agreement on the quantum of damages due in reparation of the said loss;

               3.

               In the absence of agreement orders the parties to put before the Court of First Instance within the same period their submissions on the quantum of damages;

               4.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.


title: Appeal by Anne Hogan against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 29 March 1995 in Case T-497/93, Anne Hogan against the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Case C-173/95 P)

text:
12 . 8 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 208/9
Appeal by Anne Hogan against the judgment of the Court of                   formal ad hoc powers may do so, in compliance with the
First Instance of the European Communities of 29 March                     relevant rules, for example the Luxembourg Law of
1995 in Case T-497/93 , Anne Hogan against the Court of                     1 0 August 1 99 1 on the legal profession and admission to
             Justice of the European Communities                           the register,
                       ( Case C-173/95 P)
                          ( 95/C 208/ 18 )                            — hold that Article 24 of the Staff Regulations obliges the
                                                                            Communities to assist officials and not to act to their
                                                                           detriment, that the Court's services have infringed that
                                                                           obligation, and that the decisions to attach and pay over
An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice of the                   the sum of F1 43 811 were therefore unlawful ,
European Communities on 3 June 1995 by Anne Hogan,
represented by Giancarlo Lattanzi, of the Massa-Carrara
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at 33 Rue              — set aside the judgment and all measures preparatory or
Godchaux, against the judgment of the Court of First                       subsequent thereto, or connected therewith,
Instance of the European Communities of 29 March 1995 in
Case T-497/93 .
                                                                      — refer the case back to the Court of First Instance in
                                                                           plenary session, or in the alternative to a Chamber of at
                                                                           least five members , and in any event excluding the judge
The appellant claims that the Court should :                               to whom objection is made,
— declare the appeal admissible and well founded ,                    — in the alternative, hold that measures of foreign courts,
                                                                           including orders, are not directly enforceable under
                                                                           Community law without a prior judgment by the Court
— allow the claims in this case, especially those contained                of Justice giving them legal effect and prior verification
    in the original action brought on 6 August 1993 , and in               that the principles of international and Community
    measures preparatory or subsequent thereto, or                         public order have been complied with,
    connected therewith, and in particular those expressly
    set out in the summary of essential facts at the beginning        — make such further order as may be appropriate,
    of this application,
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay the costs.
— hold that the action is brought against the appointing
    authority of the Court, and not against the Court of
    Justice of the European Communities in its capacity as            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    the body judging this appeal,
                                                                        I. Lack of competence
— hold that the plea of nullity is in itself sufficient to
    subsume all the other pleas,                                       II . Procedural irregularities :
— expressly declare that the orders made against the                         — change of the defendant's name (this of itself being
    appellant under Luxembourg law have no legal                                 sufficient to render the judgment void ),
    existence in Community law, because national courts
    have no power to make the Court and other Community                      — failure to observe the rules concerning:
    institutions party to proceedings concerning provisional
    orders ,
                                                                                (A ) priority of cases ( Rules of Procedure of the
                                                                                Court of First Instance, Article 55 );
— declare that the Community institutions and/or their                                 modification of measures of organization of
    personnel divisions are not employers subject to                                   procedure ( Articles 49 and 69 (4 ));
    Luxembourg law,                                                                    designation ad hoc of an Advocate-General
                                                                                ( Article 18 in particular ); joinder of actions
                                                                                ( Article 50 ); the possibility of transferring the
— find that the appellant is an employee of the European                               case to a plenary session at any time
    Parliament and not of the Court of Justice, and that the                           (Articles 11 , 14 and 51 , last sentence );
    Court of First Instance was wrong to state that the                                transmission of procedural documents
    appellant's employer was the Court, having stated in                               ( Article 25 ( 1 )); the taking of appropriate
    paragraph 1 of its judgment that she was ' an official in                          measures of enquiry ( Article 65 ( c ));
    Grade C 1 in the European Parliament',
                                                                                ( B ) the irregular transfer of the case from the
— declare that the Head of Personnel does not have the                                 Third Chamber ( composed of three members )
    power to represent the Court of Justice before national                            to the Fourth Chamber ( also composed of
    courts, and that only servants of the institution with                             three members ), including the Luxembourg
 ---pagebreak--- No C 208/10            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       12 . 8 . 95
                judge, R. Schintgen, to whom objection had            interpreted as meaning that only actual entry into the
                already been repeatedly made,                         territorial waters of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia by a
                                                                      ship or other means of transport carrying goods intended for
          ( C ) the objection to Judge R. Schintgen ( Protocol        commercial traffic in the said territorial waters constitutes a
                on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the         breach of the prohibition laid down therein, or do those
                EEC, Article 4, second paragraph, Article 16,         legislative provisions also cover conduct occurring in
                first paragraph, and Article 44 ); lack of            international waters which, because of the specific way in
                impartiality of that judge in any event,              which it is conceived and put into effect, gives good reason
                irrespective of whether the grounds for               to believe that the ship or other means of transport is on
                objection are well founded .                          course for the said territorial waters for the purposes of
                                                                      commercial traffic ?
III. Infringement of Community law and of Article 6 of the
      European Convention on Human Rights and on the                  Question 2 : Do Article 1 ( d ) of the Decision and Article 1 ( d )
      protection of computer data (sic), in that the contested        of the Regulation mentioned above, in so far as they prohibit
      judgment:                                                       any activity the object or effect of which is, directly or
                                                                      indirectly, to promote the transactions mentioned in
      — infringes the rights of the defence,                          Article 1 (c ), include within their scope navigation in
                                                                      international waters by a ship or other means of transport
      — takes no account of the fact that a national court            carrying goods presumably intended for commercial traffic
          has no power to make the Court of Justice party to          in the territorial waters of the Federal Republic of
          proceedings,                                                Yugoslavia ?
      — wrongly declares a number of conditional pre-trial            Question 3 : Is a domestic provision which expressly
          orders, existing only in foreign law, to be effective       prescribes, in the event of breach of any of the prohibitions
          in Community law,                                           contained in the abovementioned Article 1 being
                                                                      ascertained , confiscation — either compulsory or
                                                                      discretionary — of the cargo carried by any of the means of
      — wrongly upheld the flagrant breaches of Article 24            transport indicated in the second paragraph of Article 10 of
          of the Staff Regulations of Officials by the
          Personnel Division of the Court, which failed to            the abovementioned Community Decision and Regulation
          provide its own officials, in this case the appellant,
                                                                      compatible with Community legislation, in particular the
                                                                      first and second paragraphs of the said Article 10 ?
          with the assistance it was expressly obliged to
          provide by the Staff Regulations .
                                                                      I 1 ) OJ No L 102 , 28 . 4 . 1993 , p . 17 .
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No L 102 , 28 . 4 . 1993 , p . 14 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by Consiglio di Stato by
order of that court of 11 April 1995 in the case of ( 1 ) Ebony
Maritime SA and (2 ) Loten Navigation Company Ltd v.                  Action brought on 9 June 1995 by the Kingdom of Spain
       Prefetto della Provincia de Brindisi and Others                          against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( Case C-l 79/95 )
                        ( Case C-177/95 )
                                                                                95/C 208/20 )
                          ( 95/C 208/19 )
                                                                      An action against the Council of the European Union was
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      brought before the Court of Justice of the European
European Communities by an order of the Consiglio di                  Communities on 9 June 1995 by the Kingdom of Spain,
Stato ( Council of State ) of 11 April 1995 , which was
                                                                      represented by Alberto Navarro Gonzalez, Director General
received at the Court Registry on 6 June 1995 , for a                 for Community Legal and Institutional Coordination, and
preliminary ruling in the case of ( 1 ) Ebony Maritime SA and         by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, Abogado del Estado, acting as
( 2 ) Loten Navigation Company Ltd v. Prefetto della
Provincia de Brindisi and Others on the following
                                                                      Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                      Spanish Embassy, 4—6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais .
questions :
Question 1 : Must Article 1 (c ) of Decision 92/235/ECSC ( l )        The applicant claims that the Court should :
of the representatives of the governments of the Member
States meeting within the Council of 26 April 1993                    — annul the last sentence in Article 1 ( 1 ) ( i ) of Annex IV to
concerning trade between the European Coal and Steel                        Council Regulation ( EC ) No 685/95 (*) of 27 March
Community and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ( Serbia                   1995 on the management of the fishing effort relating to
and Montenegro ) and Article 1 (c ) of Council Regulation                   certain Community fishing areas and resources,
( EEC ) No 990/93 ( 2 ) of the same date concerning trade
between the European Economic Community and the                       — annul the fifth element concerning anchovy in Annex I to
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ( Serbia and Montenegro ) be                 Council Regulation ( EC ) No 746/95 ( 2 ) of 31 March


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Industrial Tribunal, Bristol, by order of that court of 6 May 1998, in the case of 1) Mr G. Everson and 2) Mr T. J. Barrass against 1) Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and 2) Bell Lines Ltd (in liquidation) (Case C-198/98)

text:
C 234/18              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25.7.98
The Commission claims that the Court should:                        ruling in the case of 1) Mr G. Everson and 2) Mr T. J.
                                                                    Barrass against 1) Secretary of State for Trade and
                                                                    Industry and 2) Bell Lines Ltd (in liquidation), on the
Ð declare that, by not taking the necessary measures to             following question:
     comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of
     23 March 1995 in Case C-365/93 (1) and, in particular,         Where
     by not having yet adopted, and communicated to the
     Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative           (i)   an employee works in one Member State for an
     provisions necessary to comply fully with Council                    employer incorporated in another Member State; and
     Directive 89/48/EEC (2) of 21 December 1988 on a
     general system for the recognition of higher-education         (ii) the employer has a branch in the Member State in
     diplomas awarded on completion of professional                       which the employee works, and that branch is
     education and training of at least three years'                      registered under the national provisions implementing
     duration, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its             Council Directive 89/666/EEC (1) (the Eleventh
     obligations under Article 171 of the EC Treaty;                      Company Law Directive), although it is not
                                                                          incorporated and does not have legal personality
Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                           separate from that of the employer, in that Member
                                                                          State; and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 (iii) both the employer and the employee are required to
                                                                          make social security contributions in the Member
                                                                          State in which the employee works;
Under Article 171 of the EC Treaty, if a Member State
fails to take, within the time-limit laid down by the               under Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC (2) of
Commission, the necessary measures to comply with a                 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the
judgment in which the Court has found that the Member               Member States relating to the protection of employees in
State in question failed to fulfil its obligations under the        the event of the insolvency of their employer, which
Treaty, the Commission may bring the case before the                guarantee institution is responsible for the payments
Court of Justice. In so doing the Commission is to specify          thereby due; is it
the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be
paid by the Member State concerned which it considers               (a) the guarantee institution in the Member State in
appropriate in the circumstances. The failure fully to                    which insolvency proceedings have been commenced,
transpose Directive 89/48/EEC into Greek law constitutes                  or
a breach of the fundamental principles of the free
movement of persons and the freedom to provide services,
                                                                    (b) the guarantee institution in the Member State in
and three years have already passed since the Court gave
                                                                          which the employee works and in which the
judgment in Case C-365/93. In view of the seriousness and
                                                                          employer has a permanent commercial presence?'
duration of the breach and the need to ensure that the
sanction has a deterrent effect, the Commission invites the
                                                                    (1) Eleventh Council Directive 89/666/EEC of 21 December 1989
Court to impose a penalty payment of ECU 41 000 per                     concerning disclosure requirements in respect of branches
day from the day on which the Hellenic Republic is                      opened in a Member State by certain types of company
notified of the judgment of the Court in this case until the            governed by the law of another State (OJ L 395 of
day on which the breach ceases.                                         30.12.1989, p. 36).
                                                                    (2) OJ L 283 of 20.10.1980, p. 23.
(1) Case C-365/93 Commission v Greece [1995] ECR I-499.
(2) OJ L 19 of 24.1.1989, p. 16.
                                                                    Appeal brought on 25 May 1998 by Anthony Goldstein
                                                                    against the order made on 16 March 1998 by the Third
                                                                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Industrial                Communities in Case T-235/95, between Anthony
Tribunal, Bristol, by order of that court of 6 May 1998,                   Goldstein and the Commission of the European
in the case of 1) Mr G. Everson and 2) Mr T. J. Barrass                                       Communities
against 1) Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and 2)                                (Case C-199/98 P)
                Bell Lines Ltd (in liquidation)
                                                                                (98/C 234/36)
                       (Case C-198/98)
                        (98/C 234/35)                               An appeal against the order made on 16 March 1998 by
                                                                    the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                    European Communities in Case T-235/95, between
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the              Anthony Goldstein and the Commission of the European
European Communities by an order of the Industrial                  Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of
Tribunal, Bristol, of 6 May 1998, which was received at             the European Communities on 25 May 1998 by Anthony
the Court Registry on 25 May 1998, for a preliminary                Goldstein, a medical practitioner, represented by Mr


title: Case C-79/05: Action brought on 17 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/16

         Action brought on 17 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-79/05)
   (2005/C 93/29)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by U. Wölker and A. Aresu, acting as Agents.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt all precautionary measures practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of controlled substances, in particular in respect of the obligation to check annually for leakages fixed equipment with a refrigerating fluid charge of more than 3 kg, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer; (1)

               2.

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On the basis of the available information, the Italian Republic does not appear to have yet adopted any measures in accordance with Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000.

      (1)  OJ L 244 of 29. 9. 2000, p. 1.


title: Case C-15/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  27 April 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam ) — Kawasaki Motors Europe NV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane district Rotterdam (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classification of vehicles — Tractors — Cars and vehicles principally designed for the transport of persons — Regulation (EC) No 2518/98 — Point 5 of the annexed table — Invalidity)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/17

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 April 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam ) — Kawasaki Motors Europe NV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane district Rotterdam
   (Case C-15/05) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Classification of vehicles - Tractors - Cars and vehicles principally designed for the transport of persons - Regulation (EC) No 2518/98 - Point 5 of the annexed table - Invalidity)
   (2006/C 143/31)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Gerechtshof te Amsterdam
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kawasaki Motors Europe NV

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane district Rotterdam
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2518/98 of 23 November 1998 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 1998 L 315, p. 3) — New (all terrain) vehicles designed for hauling or pushing another vehicle, appliance or load, considered suitable for transporting persons — Tariff classification — Heading 87 03 21 and heading 87 01 90.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               By adopting a capacity different from that contained in the Harmonised System Committee's classification opinion of 1999 for vehicles described in subheading 8703 21 10 of the Combined Nomenclature, namely the capacity to tow loads three times their own weight or more, and thereby extending the scope of the heading covering vehicles principally designed for the transport of persons, point 5 of the table annexed to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2518/98 of 23 November 1998 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature is invalid.

               2.

               New all terrain four-wheeled vehicles with one seat only, fitted with Ackerman steering controlled by a handlebar, equipped with a towing hitch and the technical characteristics of which enable them to push twice their own weight or more, must be classified in subheading 8701 90 of that Nomenclature. It is for the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam to classify such vehicles in the subheadings which correspond to their engine power.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 November 2003 in Case C-313/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione): Christine Morgenbesser v Consiglio dell'Ordine degli avvocati di Genova (Freedom of establishment — Enrolment in the register of "praticanti" — Recognition of diplomas — Access to regulated professions)

text:
10.1.2004               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 7/11
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                              ployment benefit, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to
                                                                                fulfil its obligations under Articles 69 and 71 of the regulation;
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                    2.     Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
                       of 6 November 2003                                    (1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
in Case C-311/01: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Social
security — Articles 69 and 71 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
71 — Unemployment benefit — Frontier workers — Reten-
tion of benefit entitlement when seeking employment in
                      another Member State)                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 November 2003
                           (2004/C 7/16)
                                                                             in Case C-313/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                            the Corte suprema di cassazione): Christine Morgenbesser
                                                                                v Consiglio dell’Ordine degli avvocati di Genova (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (Freedom of establishment — Enrolment in the register of
                   in the European Court Reports)                            ‘praticanti’ — Recognition of diplomas — Access to regu-
                                                                                lated professions)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/17)
In Case C-311/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: H. Michard and H. van Vliet) v Kingdom of the
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Netherlands (Agents: H. G. Sevenster and I. van der Steen):
Application for a declaration that, by refusing to allow wholly
unemployed frontier workers to make use of the possibility                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
under Article 69 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the                                              in the European Court Reports)
Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and
to members of their families moving within the Community,
as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)                           In Case C-313/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6), of going,                   EC by the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) for a preliminary
under the conditions laid down in that provision, to one or                  ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
more Member States in order to seek employment there while                   Christine Morgenbesser and Consiglio dell’Ordine degli avvo-
retaining their entitlement to unemployment benefit, the                     cati di Genova, on the interpretation of Articles 10 EC, 12 EC,
Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations              14 EC, 39 EC, 43 EC and 149 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
under Articles 69 and 71 of the regulation, the Court (Fifth                 composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), acting for the
Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), acting for                President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr
the President of the Fifth Chamber, P. Jann and S. von Bahr,                 Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                    13 November 2003, in which it has ruled:
6 November 2003, in which it:
                                                                             Community law precludes the authorities of a Member State from
1.    Declares that, by refusing to allow wholly unemployed frontier         refusing to enrol the holder of a legal diploma obtained in another
      workers to make use of the possibility under Article 69 of             Member State in the register of persons undertaking the necessary
      Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June                  period of practice for admission to the bar solely on the ground that
      1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed         it is not a legal diploma issued, confirmed or recognised as equivalent
      persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their              by a university of the first State.
      families moving within the Community, as amended and
      updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June
      1983, of going, under the conditions laid down in that                 (1) OJ C 289 of 10.10.2001.
      provision, to one or more Member States in order to seek
      employment there while retaining their entitlement to unem-


title: Case F-126/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Barroso Truta and Others v Court of Justice (Civil Service — Contractual agents — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to the European Union’s pension scheme of pension rights previously acquired under national schemes — AECC’s proposals to add years of pensionable service — Invitation to contact the administration for explanations and to discuss whether it would be appropriate to make transfers — Acceptance by the agents of the transfer of their national pension rights without prior consultation with the AECC — Definitive nature of the transfers — Subsequent discovery of the ‘minimum subsistence figure’ rule — Fourth paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations — Duty of diligence — Alleged insufficiency of the information provided by the AECC when putting forward the proposals to add years of pensionable service — Action for damages — Non-compliance with the requirements governing the pre-litigation stage — Inadmissibility)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/37

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Barroso Truta and Others v Court of Justice
      (Case F-126/15) (1)

      ((Civil Service - Contractual agents - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the European Union’s pension scheme of pension rights previously acquired under national schemes - AECC’s proposals to add years of pensionable service - Invitation to contact the administration for explanations and to discuss whether it would be appropriate to make transfers - Acceptance by the agents of the transfer of their national pension rights without prior consultation with the AECC - Definitive nature of the transfers - Subsequent discovery of the ‘minimum subsistence figure’ rule - Fourth paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations - Duty of diligence - Alleged insufficiency of the information provided by the AECC when putting forward the proposals to add years of pensionable service - Action for damages - Non-compliance with the requirements governing the pre-litigation stage - Inadmissibility))
      (2016/C 364/44)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Barroso Truta (Bofferdange, Luxembourg) and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram, agent)

         Re:

      Payment of compensation to the applicants for the material harm which they have incurred on account of the loss of their pension rights acquired in the national system following the transfer of those rights to the pension scheme of the European Union.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the Court of Justice of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr José Barroso Truta, Mr Marc Forli, Mr Calogero Galante and Mr Bernard Gradel.

         (1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015, p. 42.


title: Action brought on 9 December 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-416/97)

text:
C 41/14                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.2.98
Action brought on 9 December 1997 by the Commission                 force the necessary provisions in order to comply with the
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic            Directives referred to in the Commission's application.
                        (Case C-416/97)
                                                                    (1 ) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.
                          (98/C 41/27)                              (2 ) OJ L 201, 4.8.1994, p. 26.
                                                                    (3 ) OJ L 104, 23.4.1994, p. 32.
                                                                    (4 ) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 15.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
9 December 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Francesco P. Ruggeri
Laderchi, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                    Action brought on 9 December 1997 by the Commission
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                    of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Kirchberg.
                                                                                Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-417/97)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                   (98/C 41/28)
1. declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                    An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or
                                                                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with:
                                                                    Communities on 9 December 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                    the European Communities, represented by Christina
    (a) Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December                  Tufvesson, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address
         1993 on the protection of animals at the time of           for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez
         slaughter or killing (1),                                  de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    (b) Council Directive 94/42/EC of 27 July 1994                  The Commission of the European Communities claims
         amending Directive 64/432/EEC on health                    that the Court should:
         problems affecting intra-Community trade in
         bovine animals and swine (2),
                                                                    1. declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
                                                                         adopt all of the laws, regulations and administrative
    (c) Commission Directive 94/16/EC of 22 April 1994                   measures (including measures providing for the
         amending Council Directive 74/63/EEC on                         imposition of penalties) necessary in order to comply
         undesirable substances and products in animal                   with Council Directive 93/22/EEC of 10 May 1993 on
         nutrition (3),                                                  investment services in the securities field (1), the Grand
                                                                         Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
    (d) Council Directive 93/118/EC of 22 December                       obligations under Article 31 of that Directive;
         1993 amending Directive 85/73/EEC on the
         financing of health inspections and controls of
                                                                    2. order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
         fresh meat and poultrymeat (4),
                                                                         costs.
    or in any event by failing to notify such provisions, the       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
    under those Directives;
                                                                    The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
                                                                    paragraph of Article 189 and of the first paragraph of
2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                     Article 5 of the EC Treaty is such as to oblige Member
                                                                    States to whom directives are addressed to adopt the
                                                                    measures necessary for the implementation of such
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 directives within the time-limit prescribed therein. The
                                                                    time-limit in question expired on 1 July 1995 but the
                                                                    Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not adopted the
Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a            necessary measures.
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State to which it is addressed,                    (1) OJ L 141, 11.6.1993, p. 27.
Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
down in directives for their transposition. That time-limit
expired without the Italian Republic having brought into


title: Case C-441/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d'appel de Douai (France)) — Société Roquette Frères v Ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation, de la Pêche et de la Ruralité (Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector — Isoglucose — Determination of the basic quantities used for the allocation of production quotas — Isoglucose produced as an intermediate product — Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 — Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 — Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2073/2000 — Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 — Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1745/2002 — Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1739/2003 — Illegality of a Community measure raised before the national court — Reference for a preliminary ruling on validity — Admissibility — Conditions — Inadmissibility of an action for annulment of the Community measure)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d'appel de Douai (France)) — Société Roquette Frères v Ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation, de la Pêche et de la Ruralité
   (Case C-441/05) (1)

   (Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector - Isoglucose - Determination of the basic quantities used for the allocation of production quotas - Isoglucose produced as an intermediate product - Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 - Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 - Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2073/2000 - Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 - Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1745/2002 - Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1739/2003 - Illegality of a Community measure raised before the national court - Reference for a preliminary ruling on validity - Admissibility - Conditions - Inadmissibility of an action for annulment of the Community measure)
   (2007/C 95/16)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour administrative d'appel de Douai
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société Roquette Frères

      Defendant: Ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation, de la Pêche et de la Ruralité
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative d'appel de Douai — Validity of Article 24(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 1981 L 177, p. 4), Article 27(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 of 13 September 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 1999 L 252, p. 1), Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2000 of 29 September 2000 reducing, for the 2000/2001 marketing year, the guaranteed quantity under the production quotas scheme for the sugar sector and the presumed maximum supply needs of sugar refineries under the preferential import arrangements (OJ 2000 L 246, p. 38), Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1), Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1745/2002 of 30 September 2002 reducing, for the 2002/2003 marketing year, the guaranteed quantity under the production quotas scheme for the sugar sector and the presumed maximum supply needs of sugar refineries under the preferential import arrangements (OJ 2002 L 263, p. 31) and Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1739/2003 of 30 September 2003 reducing, for the 2003/2004 marketing year, the guaranteed quantity under the production quotas for the sugar sector and the presumed maximum supply needs of sugar refineries under preferential imports (OJ 2003 L 249, p. 38) — Setting of basic quantities for the allocation of isoglucose production quotas without taking into account the isoglucose produced as an intermediate product
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A natural or legal person such as Roquette Frères, in factual and legal circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, could not undoubtedly have brought an admissible action on the basis of Article 230 EC to annul:

                           —

                           Article 24(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector;

                           —

                           Article 27(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 of 13 September 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector;

                           —

                           Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2000 of 29 September 2000 reducing, for the 2000/01 marketing year, the guaranteed quantity under the production quotas scheme for the sugar sector and the presumed maximum supply needs of sugar refineries under the preferential import arrangements;

                           —

                           Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector;

                           —

                           Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1745/2002 of 30 September 2002 reducing, for the 2002/03 marketing year, the guaranteed quantity under the production quotas scheme for the sugar sector and the presumed maximum supply needs of sugar refineries under the preferential import arrangements, and

                           —

                           Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1739/2003 of 30 September 2003 reducing, for the 2003/04 marketing year, the guaranteed quantity under the production quotas for the sugar sector and the presumed maximum supply needs of sugar refineries under preferential imports.

                     Therefore, such a person may, in proceedings brought under national law, plead the illegality of those provisions even though it has not brought an action for annulment of those provisions before the Community Courts within the time-limit laid down in Article 230 EC.

               2.

               The examination of the second question has not revealed any factor such as to affect the validity of Article 24(2) of Regulation No 1785/81, Article 27(3) of Regulation No 2038/1999, Article 1 of Regulation No 2073/2000, Article 11(2) of Regulation No 1260/2001, Article 1 of Regulation No 1745/2002 or Article 1 of Regulation No 1739/2003.

      (1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.