title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 February 2001 in Case C-333/99: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources — Control of fishing and related activities — Inspection of fishing vessels and monitoring of landings (Article 5 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 and Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87) — Temporary prohibition of fishing activities (Article 11(2) of Regulation No 2241/87) — Penal or administrative action against those responsible for infringing the Community rules on conservation and monitoring (Article 5(2) of Regulation No 170/83 and Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/87))

text:
C 173/4                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.6.2001
1.    Where an examination of goods has been ordered by the                 of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,
      customs authority for the purposes of verifying a declaration         D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges;
      which has been accepted and it has proved impossible to carry         J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
      out the examination because the goods have been removed from          judgment on 1 February 2001, in which it:
      the place of temporary storage without the authorisation of the
      relevant customs authority, the customs debt on importation is        1.    Declares that, since the public management and construction
      incurred under Article 203(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)                   entities of Val-de-Marne and Paris and the low-rent housing
      No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community                    corporation Logirel did not publish contract notices in the
      Customs Code.                                                               Official Journal of the European Communities concerning
                                                                                the public contracts announced by notices in the Bulletin
2.    It is possible for a customs debt on importation to be incurred             Officiel des Annonces des Marchés Publics of 7 and
      under Article 203(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 where                         16 February 1995 and the Moniteur des Travaux Publics et
      the customs declaration received by the customs office was                  du Bâtiment of 17 February 1995, the French Republic
      accompanied by technically correct certificates of origin corre-            has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive
      sponding to Form A and where the zero preferential tariff                   93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of
      applied to the goods covered by the declaration.                            procedures for the award of public works contracts, in particular
                                                                                Article 11(2) thereof;
(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.                                                  2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;
                                                                            3.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 1 February 2001                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-237/99: Commission of the European Communi-                                                  (Fifth Chamber)
ties v French Republic, supported by United Kingdom of
             Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)                                                  of 1 February 2001
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                in Case C-333/99: Commission of the European Communi-
93/37/EEC — Public works contracts — Concept of ‘con-                                             ties v French Republic (1)
                          tracting authority’)
                                                                            (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Com-
                            (2001/C 173/06)                                 munity system for the conservation and management of
                                                                            fishery resources — Control of fishing and related activities
                                                                            — Inspection of fishing vessels and monitoring of landings
                      (Language of the case: French)                        (Article 5 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 and
                                                                            Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87) — Temporary
                                                                            prohibition of fishing activities (Article 11(2) of Regulation
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      No 2241/87) — Penal or administrative action against
                     in the European Court Reports)                         those responsible for infringing the Community rules on
                                                                            conservation and monitoring (Article 5(2) of Regulation
In Case C-237/99: Commission of the European Communities                       No 170/83 and Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/87))
(Agent: M. Nolin) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-
Bellanger, F. Million and S. Pailler) supported by United                                              (2001/C 173/07)
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent:
R.V. Magrill) — application for a declaration that, in the
context of various procedures, for the award of public                                           (Language of the case: French)
contracts for the construction of housing organised by public
development and construction entities and by low-rent hous-
ing corporations, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
obligations under Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June                                        in the European Court Reports)
1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award
of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54), in particular             In Case C-333/99: Commission of the European Communities
Article 11(2) thereof — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                 (Agents: T. van Rijn and B. Mongin) v French Republic
 ---pagebreak--- 16.6.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 173/5
(Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Vasak) — application for a               —     by failing to determine the appropriate detailed rules for
declaration that,                                                                  the utilisation of the quotas allocated to it for the
                                                                                1988 and 1990 fishing years and by failing to ensure
                                                                                compliance with the Community rules on the conservation
                                                                                of species through adequate monitoring of fishing activities
                                                                                and through appropriate inspection of the fishing fleet,
—    by failing to determine the appropriate detailed rules for                    actual landings and catch records for both the 1988 and
     the utilisation of the quotas allocated to it for the                         1990 fishing years;
     1988 and 1990 fishing years,
                                                                             —     by not provisionally prohibiting fishing by vessels flying
                                                                                the French flag or registered in French territory in cases
                                                                                where the catches made were deemed to have exhausted the
                                                                                corresponding quota and, where relevant, by prohibiting
—    by failing to ensure compliance with the Community                            fishing after the corresponding quota had been largely
     rules on the conservation of species through adequate                         exceeded, in both the 1988 and 1990 fishing years;
     monitoring of fishing activities and through appropriate
     inspection of the fishing fleet, actual landings and catch                    and
     records for both the 1988 and 1990 fishing years,
                                                                             —     by failing, as regards the 1988 and 1990 fishing years,
                                                                                to take penal or administrative action against any master
                                                                                or other person responsible for fishing after imposition of
                                                                                a fishing ban,
—    by not temporarily prohibiting, in both the 1988 and
     1990 fishing years, fishing by vessels flying the French                the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     flag or registered in French territory at times when                    Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of
     the catches made were deemed to have exhausted the                      25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for
     corresponding quota, and by finally prohibiting fishing at              the conservation and management of fishery resources, in
     a time when the corresponding quota had been largely                    conjunction with Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
     exceeded,                                                               No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control
                                                                             measures for fishing activities, under Article 11(2) of Regu-
                                                                             lation No 2241/87, and under Article 5(2) of Regulation
                                                                             No 170/83 in conjunction with Article 1(2) of Regulation
                                                                             No 2241/87;
     and
                                                                       2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
—    by failing, for the 1988 and 1990 fishing years, to take
     penal or administrative action against any master or other
     person responsible for fishing after a prohibition had
     been imposed,
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 February 2001
the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                       in Case C-350/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of
                                                                       the Arbeitsgericht Bremen, Germany): Wolfgang Lange v
25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for the
                                                                                Georg Schünemann GmbH (1)
conservation and management of fishery resources (OJ 1983
L 24, p. 1), in conjunction with Article 1(1) of Council               (Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an
Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing               employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions
certain control measures for fishing activities (OJ 1987 L 207,        applicable to the contract or employment relationship —
p. 1), under Article 11(2) of Regulation No 2241/87, and               Length of normal daily or weekly work — Rules on overtime
under Article 5(2) of Regulation No 170/83 in conjunction                                       — Rules of evidence)
with Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 — the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the                                            (2001/C 173/08)
Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), P. Jann
and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 February 2001, in which
it:
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-350/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
1.   Declares that:                                                    the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arbeitsgericht


title: Case C-7/07: Action brought on 15 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/5

         Action brought on 15 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-7/07)
   (2007/C 69/09)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils, Agent)

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art (1) and, in any event by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of Directive 2001/84/EC expired on 31 December 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 272, 2001, p. 32.


title: Case T-124/04: Action brought on 1 April 2004 by Jamal Ouariachi against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/49

         Action brought on 1 April 2004 by Jamal Ouariachi against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-124/04)
   (2004/C 118/105)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 April 2004 by Jamal Ouariachi, resident in Rabat (Moroccco), represented by France Blanmailland, avocat.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant a total lump sum indemnity of EUR 150 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered by him;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant holds Moroccan and Spanish citizenships and resides in Morocco. By the present action he seeks compensation for the non-material loss he alleges he has suffered because his ex-wife has left Morocco with their two children, thereby depriving him of his visitation rights with his children. The applicant's ex-wife allegedly went to Sudan to join a Commission official who provided her with an invitation from the European Union delegation in Sudan in order to enable her to obtain a visa.
   The applicant also alleges that the agent in question signed his children's school reports on several occasions, thereby wrongfully assuming the applicant's identity.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 March 2003 in Case T-57/00: Banan-Kompaniet AB and Skandinaviska Bananimporten AB v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Bananas — Common organisation of the markets — Decision 94/800/EC — Regulation (EC) No 478/95 — Export licence scheme — Action for damages)

text:
C 112/26                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         10.5.2003
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 25 February 2003
                          of 6 March 2003
                                                                            in Case T-183/00, Strabag Benelux NV v Council of the
                                                                                European Union (1)
in Case T-57/00: Banan-Kompaniet AB and Skandinaviska
                                                                            (Public works contracts — Contested decision non-existent
Bananimporten AB v Council of the European Union and                        — Statement of reasons in the decision awarding the contract
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
                                                                            — Criteria for award — Application for annulment — Non-
                                                                                contractual liability of the Community)
(Bananas — Common organisation of the markets —                                                       (2003/C 112/48)
Decision 94/800/EC — Regulation (EC) No 478/95 —
          Export licence scheme — Action for damages)                                           (Language of the case: French)
                          (2003/C 112/47)                                   In Case T-183/00, Strabag Benelux NV, established in Stabroek
                                                                            (Belgium), represented by A. Delvaux and V. Bertrand, lawyers,
                                                                            with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of
                    (Language of the case: English)                         the European Union (Agents: F. van Craeyenest, M. Arpio
                                                                            Santacruz and J. Stuyck) — application for, first of all,
                                                                            annulment of the Decision of the Council of 12 April 2000 to
                                                                            award to Entreprises Louis de Waele the contract for invitation
                                                                            to tender No 107865 issued on 30 July 1999 (OJ S 146) for
                                                                            the refitting and general maintenance of the Council’s buildings
In Case T-57/00, Banan-Kompaniet AB, established in Stock-                  and, second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered
holm (Sweden), Skandinaviska Bananimporten AB, established                  by the applicant as a result of the Council’s conduct — the
in Arsta (Sweden), represented by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, with              Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of the                      J.D. Cooke, President, and R. García-Valdecases and P. Lindh,
European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt and J.-P. Hix) and                     Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially                   given a judgment on 25 February 2003, in which it:
P. Oliver and C. Van der Hauwaert, then L. Visaggio and K.
Fitch): Application for compensation for the damage allegedly               1.     Dismisses the application;
suffered by the applicants by reason of the introduction of the
export licence scheme by Council Decision 94/800/EC of                      2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those of the
22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of                            Council.
the European Community, as regards matters within its
competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round                  (1 ) OJ C 273 of 23.9.00.
multilateral negotiations (1986-1994) (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 1)
and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 478/95 of 1 March
1995 on additional rules for the application of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the tariff quota
arrangements for imports of bananas into the Community and
amending Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 (OJ 1995 L 49, p. 13),                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,                                            of 11 March 2003
Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:                          in Case T-186/00: Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. rl v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
1.     Dismisses the application;                                           (Agriculture — Guidance Section of the European Agricul-
                                                                            tural Guidance and Guarantee Fund — Discontinuance of
                                                                            financial aid — Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88
2.     Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those           — Principle of proportionality — Statement of reasons)
       of the Council and the Commission.
                                                                                (2003/C 112/49)
( 1) OJ C 135 of 13.05.2000.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            In Case T-186/00: Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. rl, established in
                                                                            San Lazzaro di Savena (Italy), represented by M. Averani,


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 May 2005 in Case T-22/04: Reemark Gesellschaft für Markenkooperation mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community Trade Mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Westlife — Earlier national mark West — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/19

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 4 May 2005
   in Case T-22/04: Reemark Gesellschaft für Markenkooperation mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community Trade Mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Westlife - Earlier national mark West - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs)
   (2005/C 171/34)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-22/04: Reemark Gesellschaft für Markenkooperation mbH, established in Hamburg (Germany), represented by P. Koch Moreno, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: S. Laitinen), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM being Bluenet Ltd, established in Limerick (Ireland) — application for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 November 2003 (Case R 238/2002-2) relating to opposition proceedings brought by the holder of the mark West against the application for the mark Westlife — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; B. Pastor, Assistant Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 4 May 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 November 2003 (Case R 238/2002-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and those incurred by the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.


C 246/46              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28.8.1999
       Removal from the register of Case T-32/96 (1)                             Removal from the register of Case T-6/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 246/93)                                                           (1999/C 246/96)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: English)
By order of 12 April 1999 the President of the Second                    By order of 5 May 1999 the President of the Fifth Chamber of
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                 ordered the removal from the register of Case T-6/97: Com-
the register of Case T-32/96: Société Générale v Commission              africa SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. v Com-
of the European Communities.                                             mission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996.                                                (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-153/96 and
                           T-8/97 (1)                                           Removal from the register of Case T-62/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 246/94)                                                           (1999/C 246/97)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: French)
By order of 25 February 1999 the President of the Fifth                  By order of 12 April 1999 the President of the Second
Chamber, Extended Composition of the Court of First Instance             Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                 of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Joined Cases T-153/96 and T-8/97: Union                  the register of Case T-62/97: Société Générale v Commission
Carbide Corporation v Commission of the European Com-                    of the European Communities.
munities.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996 and OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-124/97 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case T-1/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 246/95)                                                           (1999/C 246/98)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
By order of 31 May 1999 the President of the Second Chamber              By order of 15 April 1999 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities               of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-1/97:                has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-124/97:
Jean-Luc Delhaye v Commission of the European Communi-                   Miguel Dı́az-Llanos La Roche v Commission of the European
ties.                                                                    Communities.
(1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.                                                (1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.


title: Case T-184/00: Action brought on 13 July 2000 by Zisis Khristou Drouvis against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 335/44              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25.11.2000
Action brought on 13 July 2000 by Zisis Khristou Drouvis                Action brought on 11 September 2000 by the Inter-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    national and European Public Services Organisation
                                                                        (IPSO) and the Union of Staff of the European Central
                                                                               Bank (USE) against the European Central Bank
                         (Case T-184/00)
                                                                                (Case T-238/00)
                         (2000/C 335/83)
                                                                                (2000/C 335/84)
                   (Language of the case: Greek)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                 (Language of the case: German)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 July 2000 by Zisis Khristou
Drouvis, resident at Odos Parmenidou 7, Marousi, Attica,                An action against the European Central Bank was brought
Greece, represented by Ioannis Stamouolis, of the Athens Bar,           before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of            on 11 September 2000 by the International and European
Myriam Pierrat, 2 Place Winston Churchill, L-2014 Luxem-                Public Services Organisation (IPSO) and the Union of Staff of
bourg.                                                                  the European Central Bank (USE), Frankfurt am Main, Germ-
                                                                        any, represented by Christian Roth, Tanja Raab-Rhein and
                                                                        Michael Roth, Rechtsanwälte, Frankfurt am Main.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     hold his application lawful and well founded;                     The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     order the amendment of the measure of November 1999               —     annul the decision of the defendant of 7 July 2000,
      determining his pension, so that it is set at a rate equal to
      the rate for persons who establish their residence in the
      United Kingdom;
                                                                        —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     otherwise, and purely in the alternative, order the reset-
      ting of his pension at the level paid to persons who have
      established their residence in Belgium.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Grounds for annulment and main arguments                                The applicants are trades unions which represent employees
                                                                        of the ECB. They seek the annulment of a letter of the Vice-
                                                                        President of the ECB refusing to act on certain requests from
The applicant challenges the measure determining his monthly            the applicants. The applicants had, in previous correspondence,
pension, to which the ‘weighting’ laid down for Greece was              requested the defendant, first, to revoke certain parts of its Staff
applied; that weighting is equal to 86,5 % of the pension paid          Rules, since, in the applicants’ submission, those provisions
to persons who have established their residence in Belgium,             inadmissibly restricted the staff’s right to strike. Second, the
who are entitled to 100 % of the resulting pension.                     applicants had requested that a provision be inserted in the
                                                                        Conditions of Employment for Staff of the ECB to enable the
                                                                        Conditions of Employment to be amended by collective
The applicant submits in that regard that Article 82 of the             agreements.
Staff Regulations, which requires pensions to be ‘weighted’
depending on the place where the pensioner proposes to
establish his residence, is contrary to the provisions of the           In the application it is submitted that the letter of the Vice-
European Convention on Human Rights, which constitute                   President should be regarded as a decision of the defendant.
‘general principles of Community law’ and offends against the           That decision infringes, in the performance of the contract,
principle of equal treatment and the applicant’s right to               applicable legal rules and fails to recognise, in particular, the
freedom of movement and establishment in the territory of               importance of the fundamental right of freedom of association.
the Member States of the Union; for those reasons it is invalid.        In the exercise of its discretion, the defendant has given
                                                                        consideration exclusively to its interests as an employer. It has
                                                                        thereby failed to appreciate that, in laying down its general
                                                                        Conditions of Employment, it must also take account of the
                                                                        rights of trades unions.


title: Case C-287/03: Action brought on 3 July 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
C 200/20              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        23.8.2003
Action brought on 25 June 2003 by the Commission of the                  —     order the defendant to pay EUR 52,91 (fifty two Euros
European Communities against the United Kingdom of                             and ninety one Cents) per day by way of interest from
              Great Britain and Northern Ireland                               1 May 2003 until the date on which the debt is repaid in
                                                                               full;
                         (Case C-277/03)
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the present
                         (2003/C 200/34)                                       action.
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of              Pleas in law and main arguments
the European Communities on 25 June 2003 by the Commis-
sion of the European Communities, represented by Mr Xavier               On the basis of Article 3(1)(a) of the general conditions
Lewis and Mr Minas Konstantinidis, acting as agents, with an             (annex II of the contract) the defendant was obliged to
address for service in Luxembourg.                                       distribute the initial advance among the contractors and/or
                                                                         the RTD Performers within thirty days of receipt of the funds.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                              The defendant did not do so and withdrew from the project.
                                                                         Under the contract all payments were to be treated as advances
1)    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and        until the last project deliverable was approved. The defendant
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-          is therefore obliged to reimburse the advance payment to the
      tive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the              Commission, subject to proof by the defendant of any costs
      Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles (OJ           incurred by it.
      L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34) the United Kingdom of Great
      Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obliga-      The defendant had until 31 August 2002 to submit a claim for
      tions under the Directive and in particular its                    costs, together with the necessary technical report in support
      Article 10 (1) and under the Treaty establishing the               of such a claim. The defendant did not do so and therefore has
      European Community.                                                forfeited its right to make a claim for any costs incurred in
                                                                         relation to the project and it thus has no right to claim a
2)    order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern             deduction from the advance payment in respect of such a
      Ireland to pay the costs.                                          claim.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 21 April 2002.
                                                                         Action brought on 3 July 2003 by the Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                                (Case C-287/03)
Action brought on 26 June 2003 by the Commission of                                              (2003/C 200/36)
the European Communities against Implants (Interna-
                             tional) Ltd
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
                         (Case C-279/03)                                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 July
                                                                         2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                         (2003/C 200/35)                                 represented by M. Patakia and N.B. Rasmussen, acting as
                                                                         Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
An action against Implants (International) Ltd was brought               The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on               Court should:
26 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by R. Lyal and C. Giolito, acting as agents,         1.    declare that, by applying in a discriminatory and dispro-
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                     portionate manner the conditions of ‘similarity’ and ‘sole
                                                                               vendor’ as between products and services acquired by a
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                    consumer, on the one hand, and products and services
                                                                               offered free of charge or at reduced prices in the context
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of                      of a customer loyalty programme, on the other hand, as a
      EUR 294 958,51 (two hundred and ninety four thousand,                    prior condition for the operation of such a programme as
      nine hundred and fifty eight Euros and fifty one Cents),                 a cross-border provision of services between undertakings,
      corresponding to EUR 284 000 as the amount due and                       the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
      EUR 10 958,51 as late payment interest;                                  under Article 49 of the EC Treaty;
 ---pagebreak--- 23.8.2003            EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                      C 200/21
2.    order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                   Furthermore, and in any event, those conditions are dispropor-
                                                                       tionate. Therefore, the need to protect the consumer and fair
                                                                       trading can no longer be relied upon.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Removal from the register of Case C-193/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 200/37)
Application of the conditions as to ‘similarity’ and being the
same vendor, as referred to by the Belgian Law on commercial           By order of 4 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
practice and consumer information and protection, in so far as         of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
concerns the operation of a customer loyalty scheme as a               register of Case C-193/02: Kingdom of the Netherlands v
cross-border provision of services, produces arbitrary or even         Commission of the European Communities.
discriminatory effects, because the conditions are very widely
avoided in practice by undertakings established in Belgium
having their own distribution network with points of sale.             (1) OJ C 191 of 10.08.2002.


title: Case C-193/01 P: Appeal brought on 7 May 2001 by Athanasios Pitsiorlas against the order made on 14 February 2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-3/00 between (1) Athanasios Pitsiorlas and (2) the Council of the European Union and the European Central Bank

text:
14.7.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 200/51
The Commission of the European Communities asks the Court               Appeal brought on 7 May 2001 by Athanasios Pitsiorlas
                                                                        against the order made on 14 February 2001 by the First
                                                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
—     to declare, pursuant to Article 226 EC, that, by applying         Communities in Case T-3/00 between (1) Athanasios
      an administrative practice whereby enriched foodstuffs            Pitsiorlas and (2) the Council of the European Union and
      which are lawfully marketed and produced in other                                   the European Central Bank
      Member States may be marketed in Denmark only if
      there is a documented need for enrichment of food
      substances in the Danish population, the Kingdom of                                       (Case C-193/01 P)
      Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Article 28 EC;
                                                                                (2001/C 200/92)
—     order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.
                                                                        An appeal against the order made on 14 February 2001 by the
                                                                        First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities in Case T-3/00 between (1) Athanasios Pitsiorlas
                                                                        and (2) the Council of the European Union and the European
                                                                        Central Bank was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                        the European Communities on 7 May 2001 by Athanasios
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pitsiorlas, represented by Dimitrios Papafilippou, of the Thessa-
                                                                        loniki Bar.
The administrative practice followed by the Danish authorities          The appellant claims that the Court should:
on the basis of Paragraph 3 of the Foodstuffs Law indisputably
constitutes an obstacle to trade contrary to Article 28 of the          —     hold the appeal admissible and well founded;
Treaty, in that foodstuffs which are lawfully sold in other
Member States cannot be marketed in Denmark. That obstacle
to trade cannot, in the Commission’s view, be justified on the          —     set aside the order under appeal made by the Court of
ground of public health (see Article 30 of the Treaty).                       First Instance on 14 February 2001 in Case T-3/00;
                                                                        —     uphold in their entirety the claims put forward at first
                                                                              instance or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the
                                                                              Court of First Instance;
General considerations as to desirable food composition for
the population cannot lawfully ground restrictions on trade.
Reliance on Article 30 of the Treaty presupposes that the               —     order the Council to pay costs at first instance and on
Member State can produce evidence in each individual case                     appeal.
that the obstacle to trade is necessary to protect public health.
                                                                        Grounds of appeal
The Commission recognises that where there are no harmo-
nised rules, it is basically for the Member States to determine         1.    Infringement of Article 114(3) of the Rules of Procedure
the level of protection which they consider necessary with                    of the Court of First Instance;
respect to public health. The discretion of the Member States
to determine the level of protection must, however, comply
with the principle of proportionality and the measures must             2.    Infringement of the principle of equality of arms;
be necessary to attain the aim sought. The Member States’
assessment of the risk to public health must be determined              3.    Misinterpretation of the Council decision;
on the basis of concrete scientific evidence. The Danish
administrative practice is based on the Codex Alimentarius,             4.    Incorrect finding, selective and consequently defective
which lays down general guidelines on the addition of vitamins                consideration of the facts resulting in infringement of
to foodstuffs. The guidelines do not give an independent                      Article 42 of the Statute of the Court of Justice;
scientific basis for introducing a prohibition on enrichment of
food substances with vitamins.
                                                                        5.    Failure to apply the case-law concerning excusable error
                                                                              or, entirely in the alternative, an excessively strict appli-
                                                                              cation of that case-law.


title: Case C-615/13 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by ClientEarth, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-214/11: ClientEarth, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/6

      Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by ClientEarth, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-214/11: ClientEarth, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
      (Case C-615/13 P)
      (2014/C 71/09)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellants: ClientEarth, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (represented by: P. Kirch, avocat)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Food Safety Authority, European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the General Court judgment of 13 September 2013 in case T-214/11;

                  —

                  order EFSA to pay all costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on three pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First ground of appeal, alleging misapplication of the legal concept of ‘personal data’ as defined by Article 2 of Regulation No. 45/2001 (1).
                  The General Court erred in finding that the combination of names and opinions constitutes personal data. The concept of ‘personal data’ does not include opinions provided in the course of participation in a public committee where experts, whose names and other personal details are publicly available, are called on to participate due to their renowned expertise.

                  2.

                  Second ground of appeal, alleging misapplication of Articles 4(1)(b) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 (2) and Article 8(b) of Regulation No. 45/2001 with regard to the scope, procedure and substance of these provisions, in particular by failing to consider and balance all the interests protected by those measures.
                  The General Court failed to fully consider all aspects of the provisions which were found to be applicable: Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 and Article 8(b) of Regulation No. 45/2001. It failed to consider and take account of the different interests protected under both measures.

                  3.

                  Third ground of appeal, alleging violation of Article 5 of the TEU by imposing a disproportionate burden of proof upon the Appellants in requiring them to show the necessity for the transfer of information and the scope of legitimate interests protected.

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No. 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data.
      OJ L 8, p. 1

         (2)  Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.
      OJ L 145, p. 43


title: Case C-101/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 27 February 2012 — Herbert Schaible v Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 27 February 2012 — Herbert Schaible v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-101/12)
   2012/C 133/35
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Herbert Schaible

      Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

      Questions referred

   The questions whether

               (a)

               the claimant’s obligation to identify individual animals under Articles 3(1) and 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 21/2004, (1)

               (b)

               the claimant’s obligation of electronic identification of individual animals under the first subparagraph of Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1560/2007, (2) and

               (c)

               the claimant’s obligation to keep holding register C in accordance with Article 5(1) in conjunction with point B(2) of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 21/2004

         are compatible with higher-ranking European Union law and therefore valid are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and Directives 92/102/EEC and 64/432/EEC (OJ 2004 L 5, p. 8).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1560/2007 of 17 December 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 as regards the date of introduction of electronic identification for ovine and caprine animals (OJ 2007 L 340, p. 25).


title: Case C-240/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2012 — Criminal proceedings against EBS Le relais Nord-Pas-De-Calais

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2012 — Criminal proceedings against EBS Le relais Nord-Pas-De-Calais
   (Case C-240/12)
   2012/C 243/08
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank te Rotterdam

      Party to the main proceedings

   EBS Le relais Nord-Pas-De-Calais

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where waste is shipped by vessel from an EU Member State (in this case France) to a State in which the OECD-Decision does not apply (in this case the United Arab Emirates), is there ‘transit’ within the meaning of the former (1) and the new (2) Waste Shipment Regulation (WSR) if under way the vessel puts in at a port of another EU Member State (in this case the Port of Rotterdam)?

               2.

               Does it make any difference to the answer to question 1 if:

                           —

                           there is storage and/or transhipment of that waste at that port and/or

                           —

                           that waste is taken ashore and/or

                           —

                           that waste is declared for import at customs?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (former WSR) (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1)

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (new WSR) (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1)


title: Case T-107/04: Actionbrought on 16 March 2004 by Aluminium SiliconMill Products GmbH against the Council of the European Union

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/85

         Action brought on 16 March 2004 by Aluminium Silicon Mill Products GmbH against the Council of the European Union
   (Case T-107/04)
   (2004/C 106/168)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 16 March 2004 by Aluminium Silicon Mill Products, Zug, Switzerland, represented by Mr A. Willems and Mr L. Ruessmann, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No. 2229/2003 to the extent it imposes duties on exports by SKU and ZAO Kremny

               —

               Order the Council the pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The contested measure, Council Regulation (EC) No. 2229/2003 (1), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon originating in Russia and as part of that imposed a 22.7 % duty on silicon originating from two related Russian producers, SUAL- Kremny-Ural and ZAO Kremny. The applicant imports silicon metal from these two producers, for sale to customers located in the European Community, and on this basis requests the annulment of the contested measure.
   In support of its application the applicant contends that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed Articles 1 paragraph 4 and article 6 paragraph 7 of Regulation 384/1996 (2), since the contested measure ignores the significance of the distinct product characteristics and distinct end uses of chemical and metallurgical silicon metals. The applicant further contends that the Council failed to state reasons in connection with the determination of the export price as well as the finding that between 1998 and 2000 the injury indicators developed positively. According to the applicant the latter finding also infringes Article 3.4 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 3 paragraph 5 of Regulation 384/1996. The applicant also contends that the Council failed to state its reasons for concluding that a causal link between the allegedly dumped imports in question and the injury had been established, committed a manifest error of assessment in relation to this finding and infringed Article 3 paragraphs 2, 6 and 7 of Regulation 384/1996 and Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. The applicant finally submits that the Council violated Article 3 paragraph 3 of Regulation 384/1996 in connexion with the use of underselling as the methodology for calculating injury elimination level, and failed to state adequate reasons for doing so.

      (1)  Official Journal L 339, 24/12/2003 P. 3 - 13.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, Official Journal L 056, 06/03/1996 P. 1 - 20.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 3 October 1996 in Case C-41/94: Federal Republic of Germany v. Commission of the European Communities (Clearance of accounts - EAGGF - Special premium for beef and veal producers - Expenditure disallowed)

text:
No C 354/ 10           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     23 . 11 . 96
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council            von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given
Directive 92/35/EEC of 29 April 1992 laying down control              a judgment on 26 September 1996 , in which it rules :
rules and measures to combat African horse sickness ( OJ No
L 157, 1992, p. 19 ) and Council Directive 92/40/EEC of               1 . Article 3 of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May
 19 May 1992 introducing Community measures for the                        1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous
control of avian influenza ( OJ No L 167, 1992, p. 1 ), the                substances discharged into the aquatic environment of
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the            the Community is to be interpreted as making any
EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of:                      discharge of cadmium, irrespective of the date on which
C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn                 the plant from which it comes commenced operation,
and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly,                       subject to the issue of a prior authorization.
Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on
26 September 1996 , in which it:                                      2 . In the absence of full transposition by a Member State
                                                                           within the time allowed of Directive 76/464/EEC, and
 1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the period                  therefore of Article 3 thereof, and of Council Directive
     prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative                   83/513/EEC of 26 September 1983 on limit values and
     provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive                 quality objectives for cadmium discharges, a public
     92/35/EEC of 29 April 1992 laying down control rules                  authority of that State may not rely on that Article 3
     and measures to combat African horse sickness and                     against an individual.
     Council Directive 92/40/EEC of 19 May 1992
     introducing Community measures for the control of                3 . There is no method of procedure in Community law
     avian influenza, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil            allowing the national court to eliminate national
     its obligations under Articles 20 and 22, respectively, of            provisions contrary to a provision of a Directive which
     those Directives;                                                     has not been transposed where that provision may not
                                                                           be relied upon before the national court.
2 . orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                      (>) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
(') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 3 October 1996
                       (Fourth Chamber )
                     of 26 September 1996                             in Case C-41 /94 : Federal Republic of Germany v.
                                                                              Commission of the European Communities ( ! )
in Case C-l 68/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Pretura Circondariale di Vicenza ): Criminal proceedings          (Clearance of accounts — EAGGF — Special premium for
                   against Luciano Arcaro (')                             beef and veal producers — Expenditure disallowed)
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/ 19 )
(Cadmium discharges — Interpretation of Council
Directives 76/464/EEC and 83/513/EEC — Direct effect
— Possibility for a Directive to be relied on against an                             (Language of the case : German)
                             individual)
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                          ( 96/C 354/18 )                                      published in the European Court Reports)
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                      In Case C-41 /94 : Federal Republic of Germany (Agents :
                                                                      Ernst Roder and Bernd Kloke ) v. Commission of the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          European Communities ( Agent: Ulrich Wolker, assisted by
          published in the European Court Reports)                    Georg M. Berrisch and Hans-Jiirgen Rabe ) — application
                                                                      for the annulment of Commission Decision 93/659/EC of
In Case C- 168/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177          25 November 1993 on the clearance of the accounts
of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale [District             presented by the Member States in respect of the
Magistrate's Court], Vicenza, ( Italy ) for a preliminary ruling      expenditure for 1990 of the European Agricultural
in the criminal proceedings pending before that court                 Guidance and Guarantee Fund ( EAGGF ), Guarantee
against Luciano Arcaro — on the interpretation of Council             Section ( OJ No L 301 , 1993 , p. 13 ), to the extent to which it
Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused                did not charge to the EAGGF the sum of DM 7 518 141
by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic           disbursed by the Federal Republic of Germany in relation to
environment of the Community ( OJ No L 129, 1976 , p. 23 )            the Community scheme providing for a special premium for
and Council Directive 83/513/EEC of 26 September 1983                 beef and veal producers — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),
on limit values and quality objectives for cadmium                    composed of C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), President of the
discharges ( OJ No L 291 , 1983 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fourth         Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and J. L. Murray, Judges,
Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ),                Advocate-General : A. La Pergola, Registrar: H. A. Riihl ,
President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H.                     Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 3 October
Ragnemalm, Judges ; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General ; H.                1996 , in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 23 . 11 . 96          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 354/ 11
1 . annuls Commission Decision 93/659/EC of                            Morocco, signed in Rabat on 27 April 1976 and concluded
     25 November 1993 on the clearance of the accounts                 on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC)
     presented by the Member States in respect of the                  No 2211 /78 of 26 September 1978, is to be interpreted as
     expenditure for 1990 of the European Agricultural                 precluding a Member State from refusing, on the ground
     Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee                    that the person concerned is of Moroccan nationality, to
     Section, in so far as it did not charge to the EAGGF the          grant benefits such as the transitional benefits established by
     sum of DM 838 636 in respect of expenses relating to              the AOW, which are provided for by its legislation in the
     the import into Germany of animals from Belgium and               case of nationals who satisfy certain residence conditions in
     France and the sum of DM 311 529 in respect of                    that State, to the spouse of a Moroccan worker who fulfils
     expenditure relating to the export of animals to Italy;           such residence conditions.
2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                        (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
3 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(') OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 3 October 1996
                                                                       in Case      C-3 80/95 :        Commission of the European
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                               Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( ! )
                         ( Sixth Chamber)                              (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                       of 3 October 1996                                      Directive 91/414/EEC — Failure to transpose)
in Case C-126/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                           ( 96/C 354/21
the Centrale Raad van Beroep ): A. Hallouzi-Choho v.
         Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank ( 1 )                                 (Language of the case: Greek)
(EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement — Article 41 (1) —
Principle ofnon-discrimination in matters ofsocial security            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
— Direct effect — Spouse ofa Moroccan migrant worker —                          published in the European Court Reports)
Special procedures for applying the Netherlands legislation
                 on general old-age insurance)
                                                                       In Case C-3 80/95 : Commission of the European
                            ( 96/C 354/20 )                            Communities ( Agent: Maria Condou-Durande ) v. Hellenic
                                                                       Republic ( Agents: Aikaterini Samoni-Rantou and Nana
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                          Dafniou ) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
                                                                       adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or
                                                                       administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           Directive 91 /414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
          published in the European Court Reports)                     placing of plant protection products on the market, the
                                                                       Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
In Case C-126/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177            EC Treaty and that Directive — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),
of the EC Treaty from the Centrale Raad van Beroep                     composed of: C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber, G.
[Higher Social Security Court] for a preliminary ruling in the         Hirsch ( Rapporteur), G. F. Mancini , P. J. G. Kapteyn and
proceedings pending before that court between A.                       H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P. Leger, Advocate-General; R.
Hallouzi-Choho         and        Bestuur   van      de   Sociale      Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 October 1996 ,
Verzekeringsbank — on the interpretation of Article 41 ( 1 )           in which it :
of the Cooperation Agreement between the European
Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco,                          I. declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
signed in Rabat on 27 April 1976 and concluded on behalf                    period the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
of the Community by Council Regulation ( EEC )                              necessary to comply with Council Directive
No 2211 /78 of 26 September 1978 ( OJ No L 264 , 1978 ,                     91 /414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of
p. 1 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. Hirsch,               plant protection products on the market, the Hellenic
President of the Second Chamber, acting for the President of                Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the Sixth Chamber, G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ) and J. L.                   Article 23 of that Directive;
Murray, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; D.
 Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
 Registrar, gave a judgment on 3 October 1996 , the operative           2 . orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
part of which is as follows:
                                                                        (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
Article 41 (1 ) of the Cooperation Agreement between the
 European Economic Community and the Kingdom of


title: Case T-432/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Vivendi v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — French broadband and telephone subscription market — Decision rejecting a complaint — Lack of Community interest — Significance of the alleged infringement as regards the functioning of the internal market — Probability of establishing the existence of the alleged infringement)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Vivendi v Commission
   (Case T-432/10) (1)

   (Competition - Abuse of dominant position - French broadband and telephone subscription market - Decision rejecting a complaint - Lack of Community interest - Significance of the alleged infringement as regards the functioning of the internal market - Probability of establishing the existence of the alleged infringement)
   2013/C 352/20
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vivendi (Paris, France) (represented initially by: M. Struys, O. Fréget and J.-Y. Ollier; and subsequently by M. Struys, O. Fréget and L. Eskenazi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Orange, formerly France Télécom (Paris France) (represented by: S. Hautbourg, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4730 of 2 July 2010, rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against France Télécom relating to an alleged abuse of a dominant position on the French broadband and telephone subscription market (Case COMP/C-1/39.653 — Vivendi & Iliad/France Télécom)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Vivendi to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders Orange to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 18 March 2004 In Case C-8/02(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen):Ludwig Leichtle v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Freedom to provide services —Sickness insurance scheme for civil servants — Health cure taken in anotherMember State — Expenditure on board, lodging, travel, visitors tax and a finalmedical report — Conditions for reimbursement — Prior declaration of eligibilityfor assistance — Criteria — Justification)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   18 March 2004
   In Case C-8/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen): Ludwig Leichtle v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Sickness insurance scheme for civil servants - Health cure taken in another Member State - Expenditure on board, lodging, travel, visitors tax and a final medical report - Conditions for reimbursement - Prior declaration of eligibility for assistance - Criteria - Justification)
   (2004/C 106/07)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-8/02: References to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Ludwig Leichtle and Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, on the interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 March 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               Articles 49 EC and 50 EC are to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude rules of a Member State, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which reimbursement of expenditure incurred on board, lodging, travel, visitors tax and the making of a final medical report in connection with a health cure taken in another Member State is conditional on obtaining prior recognition of eligibility, which is given only provided it is established, in a report drawn up by a medical officer or a medical consultant, that the proposed cure is absolutely necessary owing to the greatly increased prospects of success in that other Member State.

               2.

               Articles 49 EC and 50 EC are to be interpreted as meaning that they do not in principle preclude rules of a Member State, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which expenditure incurred on board, lodging, travel, visitors tax and the making of a final medical report in connection with a health cure, whether taken in that Member State or in another Member State, is made only where the health spa concerned is listed in the Register of Health Spas. However, it is for the national court to ensure that any conditions to which the registration of a health spa in such a register may be subject are objective and do not have the effect of making the provision of services between Member States more difficult than the provision of services purely within the Member State concerned.

               3.

               Articles 49 EC and 50 EC are to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the application of national rules under which the reimbursement of expenditure incurred on board, lodging, travel, visitors tax and the making of a final medical report in connection with a health cure taken in another Member State is precluded where the person concerned has not awaited the conclusion of the court proceedings brought against the decision refusing to recognise that expenditure as eligible for assistance before commencing the cure in question.

      (1)  OJ C 84 of 6.04.2002.


title: Case C-202/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Staccata di Brescia by order of that Court of 24 April 2003 in the case of Società DAC S.p.A. against Azienda Ospedaliera "Spedali Civili", Brescia; the third party being Pellegrini S.p.A

text:
19.7.2003                EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 171/13
same time infringed all three principles upheld by the Court in          which requires all the Member States to introduce into their
regard to the recovery of charges levied by the Member States            respective national systems review procedures full available to
in breach of Community law, that is to say not only the                  those who intend to seek reparation of damage suffered or
principle of equivalence and the maintenance of the effects of           who in any event fear that they may suffer harm as a result of
judgments of the Court declaring a charge incompatible with              a decision taken by the tenders committee for the award of a
Community law but also the principle of effectiveness.                   public procurement contract?
( 1) OJ English Special Edition 1969 II, p. 412.
                                                                         Does that interim relief which may be granted by the national
                                                                         administrative courts constitute infringement of Article 2(1)(a)
                                                                         of the Directive, which requires the Member States to take at
                                                                         the earliest opportunity and by way of interlocutory pro-
                                                                         cedures, interim measures with the aim of correcting the
                                                                         alleged infringement or preventing further damage to the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                      interests concerned, including measures to suspend or to
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione                      ensure the suspension of the procedure for the award of a
Staccata di Brescia by order of that Court of 24 April                   public contract or the implementation of any decision taken
2003 in the case of Società DAC S.p.A. against Azienda                   by the contracting authority?
Ospedaliera ‘Spedali Civili’, Brescia; the third party being
                          Pellegrini S.p.A
                                                                         Finally, does that form of interim relief also constitute breach
                          (Case C-202/03)                                of Article 6(2) TEU which, in providing that the Union must
                                                                         respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European
                          (2003/C 171/18)                                Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Funda-
                                                                         mental Freedoms, has adopted the principle laid down in
                                                                         Articles 6 and 13 of that Convention that judicial protection
                                                                         must be effective, requiring the Member States to guarantee
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   that full effectiveness in their respective national legal systems?
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
tivo Regionale per la Lombardia - Sezione Staccata di Brescia
(Regional Administrative Court for Lombardy, Brescia Div-
ision) of 24 April 2003, received at the Court Registry on               (1 ) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 33.
13 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Società DAC S.p.A. against Azienda Ospedaliera ‘Spedali Civili’,
Brescia; the third party being Pellegrini S.p.A. on the following
questions:
Is the judicial protection provided in respect of claims based
on Community law, which may be granted by the national
administrative courts in procurement contract proceedings,
and which differs from that provided in the national legal               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
order in respect of rights recognised in disputes between                Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
private persons or in disputes between the latter and the public         (Administrative Court) by order of that court dated
authorities over which the ordinary courts have jurisdiction,            12 February 2003, in the case of The Queen on the
contrary to the principle of cooperation enshrined in                    application of Dany Bidar against 1) London Borough of
Article 10 EC, which, in the absence of any harmonised                              Ealing 2) Secretary of State for Education
procedural system, requires that claims based on Community
law must be afforded the same form of protection as claims
based on national law, rather than relief which is purely                                         (Case C-209/03)
interlocutory and therefore less effective compared to the
protection afforded generally in respect of rights under national
law?                                                                                (2003/C 171/19)
Furthermore, in so far as it does not provide, among the
interim measures available, for the possibility of introducing
an application for interim relief ante causam, seeking an order          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
restraining the authorities forthwith from concluding the                European Communities by an order of the High Court
contract at the end of a. tendering procedure, quite irrespective        of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
of whether or not an action challenging an act in that                   (Administrative Court), dated 12 February 2003, which was
procedure has already been brought, does Article 21 of Law               received at the Court Registry on 15 May 2003, for a
No 1034 of 6 December 1971, as amended by Law No 205                     preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen on the application
of 21 July 2000, constitute sufficient implementation of                 of Dany Bidar against 1) London Borough of Ealing 2) Secretary
Article 1(3) of Directive 98/665/EEC (1) of 21 December 1989,            of State for Education on the following questions:


title: Action brought on 28 April 1997 by José Manuel Pinto Teixeira against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-136/97)

text:
26 . 7 . 97             EN                     Official Journal- of the European Communities                                No C 228/ 17
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                               represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Case T-16/97 (').
                                                                           — annul the Commission's decision of 12 July 1996
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                                consideration to the possible application of
                                                                                Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                           — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission 's
                                                                                decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
Action brought on 25 April 1997 by Iosif Dascalu against                         rejecting the applicant's complaint,
         the Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-133/97)                                 — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                             ( 97/C 228/38 )
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                           Case T-16/97 ( ! ).
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                          (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
Instance of the European Communities on 25 April 1997
by Iosif Dascalu, residing at Kraainem ( Belgium),
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.
                                                                           Action brought on 28 April 1997 by Jose Manuel Pinto
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Teixeira against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
— annul the Commission's decision of 12 June 1996                                                      ( Case T-136/97 )
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                                                       97/C 228 /40 )
     consideration to the possible application of
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                              (Language of the case: French)
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's                    An action against the Commission of the European
     decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,                                   Instance of the European Communities on 28 April 1997
                                                                            by Jose Manuel Pinto Teixeira, residing at Sarajevo
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                                ( Bosnia ), represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels
                                                                            Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.
 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
 Case T-16/97 (»).
                                                                            — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
 (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                                consideration to the possible application of
                                                                                Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                            — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
                                                                                decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
 Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Laurens Cerdijn                               rejecting the applicant's complaint,
    against the Commission of the European Communities
                           ( Case T-135/97 )                                — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                               ( 97/C 228/39 )                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                             Case T-16/97 (»).
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                           (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
 Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 1997
 by Laurens Cerdijn, residing at Hofstade ( Belgium ),


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 4 May 1995 in Case C-19/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Administrative d'Appel, Nantes): SA des Sucreries de Fontaine-le-Dun-Bolbec-Auffay (SAFBA) v. Ministre du Budget (Common organization of the markets in the sugar sector - System for offsetting storage costs - Chargeable event for storage levy)

text:
22 . 7 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 189/1
                                                                   I
                                                            (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  organization of the markets in the sugar sector, as amended
                        (Fourth Chamber)                              by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1396/78 of 20 June 1978,
                                                                      Article 8 (2), third subparagraph (a), of Council Regulation
                          of 4 May 1995                               (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common
in Case C-19/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the         organization of the markets in the sugar sector and
Cour Administrative d'Appel, Nantes ): SA des Sucreries de            Article 6 (4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1358/77 of
Fontaine-le-Dun-Bolbec-Auffay (SAFBA ) v. Ministre du                 20 June 1977 laying down general rules for offsetting
                              Budget O                                storage costs for sugar and repealing Regulation (EEC)
(Common organization ofthe markets in the sugar sector —              No 750/68 must be interpreted as meaning that the
System for offsetting storage costs — Chargeable event for            prescribed conditions for materialization of the obligation
                             storage levy)                            to pay the storage levy are satisfied when the sugar is
                                                                      disposed of
                           ( 95/C 189/01 )
                                                                      (!)  OJ No  C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
                 (Language of the case: French)                       (2)  OJ No  L 177, 1 . 7 . 1981 , p . 4 .
                                                                      (3 ) OJ No  L 156 , 25 . 6 . 1977, p . 4 .
                                                                      (4 ) OJ No  L 231 , 23 . 8 . 1978 , p. 5 .
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-19/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty from the Cour Administrative d'Appel
( Administrative Court of Appeal ), Nantes, for a preliminary                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                                      of 18 May 1995
SA des Sucreries de Fontaine-le-Dun-Bolbec-Auffay
( SAFBA) and the Ministre du Budget, on the interpretation                   in Case C-57/94: Commission of the European
of Article 8 ( 2 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/81 of                     Communities v. Italian Republic ( a )
30 June 1981 on the common organization ofthe markets in              (Action for failure to fulfil obligations — Public works
the sugar sector (2 ), Council Regulation (EEC ) No 1358/77           contracts — Failure to publish a notice of invitation to
of 20 June 1977 laying down general rules for offsetting                                                tender)
storage costs for sugar and repealing Regulation ( EEC )                                           ( 95/C 189/02 )
No 750/68 ( 3 ), and Article 12 of Commission Regulation
( EEC ) No 1998/78 of 18 August 1978 laying down detailed
rules for the offsetting of storage costs for sugar ( 4), the                         (Language of the case: ltalian)
Court ( Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn,
President ofthe Chamber, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ) and            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
J. L. Murray, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; D.                         published in the European Court Reports)
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 4 May 1995 , the operative
part of which is as follows :                                         In Case C-57/94 : Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities (Agent: Antonio Aresu) against the Italian
                                                                      Republic (Agent: Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by
Article 8 (1 ), third subparagraph (a), of Council Regulation         Pier Giorgio Ferri, Avvocato dello Stato ) — application for a
(EEC) No 3330/74 of 19 December 1974 on the common                    declaration that, in so far as the provincial administration of