title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 April 2001 in Case C-325/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)]: G. van de Water v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Excise duties — Directive 92/12/EEC — Chargeability of duty — Release for consumption of products subject to excise duty — Notion — Mere holding of a product subject to excise duty)

text:
C 200/6                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           14.7.2001
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                                           (Third Chamber)
                            of 5 April 2001                                                           of 5 April 2001
in Case C-325/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from                  in Case C-494/99: Commission of the European Communi-
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)]: G. van de                                        ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
           Water v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
(Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Excise duties                                     to transpose Directive 94/56/EC)
— Directive 92/12/EEC — Chargeability of duty — Release
for consumption of products subject to excise duty — Notion
     — Mere holding of a product subject to excise duty)                                              (2001/C 200/10)
                           (2001/C 200/09)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                         In Case C-494/99: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: M. Patakia and F. Benyon) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:
                                                                           N. Dafniou and D. Tsagkaraki) — application for a declaration
In Case C-325/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                 that, by failing to adopt and, in the alternative, to communicate
of the EC Treaty, from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden                       to the Commission, within the prescribed period, the laws,
(Netherlands), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                 regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
pending before that court between G. van de Water and                      in full with Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 November
Staatssecretaris van Financiën — on the interpretation of                  1994 establishing the fundamental principles governing the
Article 6(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February                 investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents (OJ 1994
1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to                   L 319, p. 14), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of                 obligations under the EC Treaty and under that directive
such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1), as amended by Council                  — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann
Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 365,                     (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, F. Macken and
p. 46) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gul-                   J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
mann, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen,            R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 April 2001, in
F. Macken (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;                   which it:
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 5 April 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                           1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
                                                                                the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
Article 6(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992                  comply in full with Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 Novem-
on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and              ber 1994 establishing the fundamental principles governing
on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as                     the investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents, the
amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994,                       Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
must be interpreted as meaning that the mere holding of a product                directive;
subject to excise duty within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that
directive constitutes a release for consumption where duty has not yet     2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
been levied on that product pursuant to the applicable provisions of
Community law and national legislation.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.


title: Case C-470/10: Order of the President of the Court of 17 February 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/9

         Order of the President of the Court of 17 February 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-470/10) (1)

   2011/C 173/21
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: References for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Roma P Sezioni distaccate di Castelnuovo di Porto e di Tivoli by orders of that court of 18 February 1995 (C-186/95) and 27 February 1995 (C-187/95) in criminal proceedings pending before that court against Luciano Iommi and Others, Angelo Deodati and Luchini Aldo (Cases C-186/95 and C-187/95)

text:
No C 208/ 14             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    12 . 8 . 95
      as such formed part of the decision to impose a fine, that         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landskrona
      cartel played a role in many places in the Commission's            Tingsratt by judgment of 14 June 1995 in the case of the
      decision and also had a decisive influence on the                               Public Prosecutor v. Harry Franzen
      judgment of the Court of First Instance .                                                 ( Case C-l 89/95 )
— Infringements of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty: the                                          ( 95/C 208/27 )
      Court of First Instance committed serious errors in its
      treatment of the established facts . In particular it several      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      times took no account of relevant considerations . That is
                                                                         European Communities by a judgment of the Landskrona
      true of market delimitation, the alleged arrangements              Tingsratt ( Landskrona District Court) of 14 June 1995 ,
      between the applicant and Trefilunion, the alleged quota           which was received at the Court Registry on 16 June 1995 ,
      and price agreements with the Benelux producers                    for a preliminary ruling in the case of Public Prosecutor v.
      concerning the German market and the alleged quota                 Harry Franzen on the following questions :
      and price agreements concerning the Benelux market.
      The judgment completely ignores the applicant's
      submissions at the hearing as well as the applicant's              1 . Is a statutory monopoly such as the Systembolaget
      replies to the written questions asked by the Court of                  compatible with Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome ?
      First Instance . Likewise the Court of First Instance failed
      to observe the preconditions of Regulation No 67/67                2 . Is a statutory monopoly such as the Systembolaget
      ( group exemptions ).                                                   contrary to Article 37 of the Treaty of Rome and, if so,
                                                                              must the monopoly be abolished or is an adjustment
— Infringements of Article 15 of Regulation No 17/62 : the                    possible ?
      Court of First Instance is wrong at law to assume that
      there is no need in an individual case to weigh up                 3 . If a monopoly such as the Systembolaget is to be
      mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the                         regarded as being contrary to Article 37, is any period of
      determination of the fine . Similarly wrong at law is the               adjustment available or should it have been abolished or
      Court 's assessment of the existence of the lawful                      an adjustment made by 1 January 1995 ?
      structural crisis cartel . The Court further fails to
       recognize that the applicant was in any event entitled to
      plead an inevitable mistake concerning the prohibition .
       Finally the Court misdirected itself in law in applying the
       principle of proportionality.
(') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
( 2 ) O ) No L 260 , 6 . 9 . 1989 , p . 1 .                              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof,
                                                                         Amsterdam, by judgment of that court of 7 June 1995 in the
                                                                         case of ARO Lease BV v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst
                                                                                Grote Ondernemingen, Amsterdam
                                                                                ( Case C-l 90/95 )
References for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                                                ( 95/C 208/28 )
Circondariale di Roma — Sezioni distaccate di Castelnuovo
di Porto e di Tivoli by orders of that court of 1 8 February
 1995 ( C-l 86/95 ) and 27 February 1995 ( C-187/95 ) in                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
criminal proceedings pending before that court against                   European Communities by a judgment of the Gerechtshof
Luciano Iommi and Others , Angelo Deodati and Luchini                     ( Regional Court of Appeal ), Amsterdam, of 7 June 1995
                                   Aldo                                  which was received at the Court Registry on 19 June 1995 ,
                                                                          for a preliminary ruling in the case of ARO Lease BV v.
                 ( Cases C-l 86/95 and C-l 87/95 )                       Inspecteur der Belastingdienst Grote Ondernemingen ( Head
                              ( 95/C 208/26 )                            of the Large Undertakings Unit of the Revenue Office ),
                                                                          Amsterdam, on the following question :
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by orders of the Pretura                            Must Article 9 ( 1 ) of the Sixth Council Directive
 Circondariale di Roma — Sezioni distaccate di Castelnuovo                77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the
 di Porto e di Tivoli ( District Magistrate 's Court, Rome —              laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
 Castelnuovo di Porto and Tivoli Sections ), of 18 February               common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
 1995 ( C-l 86/95 ) and 27 February 1995 , which were                     assessment, be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person
 received at the Court Registry on 15 June 1995 for a                     established in the Netherlands who, as such, makes
 preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending                   available to third parties approximately 6 800 passenger
 before that court against Iommi Luciano and Others,                      cars under operational-lease agreements , of which
 Angelo Deodati and Aldo Luchini on questions identical to                approximately 800 were purchased and made available in
 those in Cases C-135/95 , C-140/95 and C-141 /95 (')•                    Belgium, where ARO does not have an office, supplies those
                                                                          services from a fixed establishment in Belgium ?
 (') See Of No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .


title: Case T-199/11 P: Appeal brought on 30 March 2011 by Guido Strack against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 January 2011 in Case F-132/07 Strack v Commission

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/30

         Appeal brought on 30 March 2011 by Guido Strack against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 January 2011 in Case F-132/07 Strack v Commission
   (Case T-199/11 P)
   2011/C 232/54
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by H. Tettenborn. Lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               set aside entirely the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2011 in Case F-132/07 and uphold the claims of the applicant in those proceedings;

               —

               set aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 September 2009 in Case F-132/07 in so far as thereby the applicant’s claim for judgment in default was rejected;

               —

               set aside the decisions of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal, whereby Case F-132/07, initially assigned to the First Chamber, was subsequently assigned to the second Chamber;

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 23 July 2007 and the implied supplementary decisions of 9 August 2007 and 11 September 2007 and the decision of 9 November 2007, in so far as they reject the appellants’ requests of 9 April 2007, 11 May 2007 and 11 October 2007 for authorisation to publish documents (in the light of all legal considerations, in particular Articles 17, 17a, 19 and 24 of the Staff Regulations and any copyright and data protection provisions) and to report (ex-)Commissioners and Commission officials to the prosecuting authorities;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the appellant damages in the sum of at least EUR 10 000 for the non-material damage and damage to health caused to the appellant by the decisions which are to be annulled;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the entire costs;

               —

               the appellant additionally claims on the basis of the relevant settled case-law of the European Court of Human Rights compensation for the excessive length of proceedings of at least EUR 2 000, the exact figure to be decided at the discretion of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on twenty grounds of appeal.

               —

               The appellant claims inter alia the following: lack of jurisdiction of the formation of the Tribunal which adopted the decisions under appeal, the unlawful rejection of the claim for judgment in default, the unlawful decision to grant to the Commission extension of time-limits, the rejection of the request to join the proceedings with other proceedings between the parties, the erroneous summary of the case in the preparatory report for the hearing and in the judgment under appeal, the bias of the Judge-Rapporteur, the breach of the Tribunal’s language rules and the discrimination against the appellant on the basis of language and the failure to translate procedural documents.

               —

               The appellant further claims that the Civil Service Tribunal committed errors in law and failed to state sufficient reasons for its judgment: inter alia, in respect of the interpretation and application of Articles 11, 17, 17a, 19, 25, and 90 et seq. of the Staff Regulations for European Union officials, Articles 6, 10 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and Articles 11, 41, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


               28.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 163/9

         Action brought on 13 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-4/14)
   (2014/C 163/08)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 13 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Gjermund Mathisen and Auður Ýr Steinarsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by failing to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 4 of Chapter XXIX of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2007/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21 of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than on 26 August 2013, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 26 June 2013 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2007/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 4 of Chapter XXIX of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 16 May 2002 in Case C-232/99: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 93/16/EEC — Transposition of Articles 8 and 18 — Access to additional training for migrant doctors who wish to practise specialised medicine in the host Member State on the basis of a diploma, certificate or other evidence of formal qualifications of specialist doctors which is not the subject of automatic unconditional recognition under that directive — Obligation for migrant doctors in Spain to sit the standard competition for admission to training in specialised medicine — Requirement for affiliation to a public social security body for the settlement of accounts relating to medical services with an insurance body)

text:
C 169/2                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.7.2002
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      3.   Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the
                                                                                Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                            (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                            16 May 2002
in Case C-232/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                   ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 93/16/EEC — Transposition of Articles 8 and 18                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
— Access to additional training for migrant doctors who
wish to practise specialised medicine in the host Member
State on the basis of a diploma, certificate or other evidence                                     (Sixth Chamber)
of formal qualifications of specialist doctors which is not the
subject of automatic unconditional recognition under that
directive — Obligation for migrant doctors in Spain to sit                                           16 May 2002
the standard competition for admission to training in
specialised medicine — Requirement for affiliation to a                     in Case C-321/99 P: Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar
public social security body for the settlement of accounts                  Portugueses (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias — Açúcares
     relating to medical services with an insurance body)                   SA and Refinarias de Açúcar reunidas SA (RAR) v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
                          (2002/C 169/02)
                                                                            (Appeal — State aid — Common agricultural policy —
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                          Sugar — Aid granted in implementation of a general State
                                                                            aid scheme approved by the Commission — Contribution by
                                                                            a Member State to the financing of a project eligible for
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund,
                   in the European Court Reports)                                  Guidance Section — Aid for vocational training)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/03)
In Case C-232/99, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: I. Martı́nez del Peral and B. Mongin) v Kingdom of                                   (Language of the case: English)
Spain (Agent: N. Dı́az Abad): Application for a declaration
that, by failing to transpose correctly, within the prescribed
time-limit, Article 8 of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April
1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual              In Case C-321/99 P, Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar
recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence              Portugueses (ARAP), established in Lisbon (Portugal), Alcântara
of formal qualifications (OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1) and by failing               Refinarias — Açúcares SA, established in Santa Iria de Azóia
to transpose Article 18 of that same directive, the Kingdom of              (Portugal), and Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA (RAR),
Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of          established in Oporto (Portugal), represented by G. van der
the EC Treaty and of that directive, the Court (Fifth Chamber),             Wal: Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the Fourth Chamber,                  of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended
acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward                Composition) of 17 June 1999 in Case T-82/96 ARAP and
(Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate               Others v Commission [1999] ECR II-1889, seeking to have
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given            that judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings
a judgment on 16 May 2002, in which it:                                     being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                            J. Macdonald Flett) and Portuguese Republic (Agents: S. Brasil
                                                                            de Brito and L. Fernandes) and DAI — Sociedade de Desenvol-
1.    Declares that, by failing to transpose, within the prescribed         vimento Agro-Industrial SA, established in Monte da Barca
      time-limit, Article 8 of Council Directive 96/13/EEC of               (Portugal), represented by L. Sáragga Leal, D. Franco and
      5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the       R. Oliveira, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Col-
      mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other          neric, President of the Second Chamber, acting for the
      evidence of formal qualifications, the Kingdom of Spain has           President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet
      failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of that         (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; L.A. Geel-
      directive;                                                            hoed, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of
                                                                            Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 May
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                           2002, in which it:


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2002 in Case T-91/01: BioID AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Figurative mark containing the abbreviation BioID — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
22.2.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 44/27
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                           and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: S. Bonne and G. Schneider):
                      of 12 December 2002                                  Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of
                                                                           Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                           (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 February 2001 (Case R 538/
in Case T-63/01: The Procter & Gamble Company v Office
                                                                           1999-2) concerning the registration of a figurative mark
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                           containing the abbreviation BioID, the Court of First Instance
                     and Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)
                                                                           (Second Chamber), composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, Presi-
                                                                           dent, J. Pirrung and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers,
(Community trade mark — Soap bar shape — Compliance                        Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
with a judgment of the Court of First Instance — Rights of                 5 December 2002, in which it:
defence — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of
                    Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
                                                                           1.     Dismisses the action;
                           (2003/C 44/50)                                  2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
In Case T-63/01, The Procter & Gamble Company, established
in Cincinnatti, Ohio (United States of America), represented
by T. van Innis, lawyer, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto and                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
E. Joly): Action brought against the decision of the Third Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                         of 5 December 2002
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 December 2000
(Case R 74/1998-3), which was notified to the applicant on
11 January 2001, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),             in Case T-130/01: Sykes Enterprises, Incorp. v Office for
composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi,              Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                                      Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)
given a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it:
                                                                           (Community trade mark — REAL PEOPLE, REAL SOL-
1.     Dismisses the action;                                               UTIONS — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive
                                                                                character — Article (7)(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94)
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 44/52)
( 1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case T-130/01, Sykes Enterprises, Incorp., established in
                                                                           Tampa, Florida (United States), represented by E. Körner,
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               lawyer, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                           (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: J. Crespo Carrillo):
                                                                           Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of
                       of 5 December 2002
                                                                           Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                           (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 March 2001 (Case R 504/
in Case T-91/01: BioID AG v Office for Harmonisation in                    2000-3), relating to registration of REAL PEOPLE, REAL
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)                   SOLUTIONS, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
                                                                           composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and
(Community trade mark — Figurative mark containing the                     A. W. H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
abbreviation BioID — Absolute grounds for refusal —                        Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 December 2002, in
          Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)                     which it:
                           (2003/C 44/51)                                  1.     Dismisses the application;
                   (Language of the case: German)                          2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
In Case T-91/01, BioID AG, established in Berlin (Germany),
in judicial liquidation, represented by A. Nordemann, lawyer,


title: Case C-604/14 P: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 — Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl v European Commission, Italian Republic (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — State aid — Aid granted by the Italian Republic in favour of Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl — Reimbursement by the Equalisation Fund of part of the electricity costs invoiced to that company by its supplier — Incompatibility with the common market — Advantage — European Commission required to undertake an economic analysis)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/2

         Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 — Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl v European Commission, Italian Republic
   (Case C-604/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - State aid - Aid granted by the Italian Republic in favour of Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl - Reimbursement by the Equalisation Fund of part of the electricity costs invoiced to that company by its supplier - Incompatibility with the common market - Advantage - European Commission required to undertake an economic analysis))
   (2016/C 136/02)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl (represented by: O.W. Brouwer, advocaat, T. Salonico and M. Siragusa, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents), Italian Republic

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.


title: Case C-89/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 22 February 2013 — Luigi D’Aniello and Others v Poste Italiane SpA

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 22 February 2013 — Luigi D’Aniello and Others v Poste Italiane SpA
   (Case C-89/13)
   2013/C 156/29
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Napoli

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Luigi D’Aniello and Others

      Defendant: Poste Italiane SpA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it contrary to the principle of equivalence if, in implementing Directive 1999/70/EC, (1) national legislation makes provision, for cases where an employment contract is unlawfully suspended by operation of a clause which sets an expiry date, for economic consequences which are different from and considerably less favourable than the economic consequences which are to ensue in cases where an ordinary civil law contract is suspended by operation of a clause which sets an expiry date?

               2.

               Is it compatible with the law of the European Union that the effectiveness, within the scope of its application, of a penalty benefits the employer who has acted wrongfully, to the detriment of the employee who has been wronged, in such a way that the temporal duration and the physical demands of the procedure directly damage the employee to the advantage of the employer, and the efficacy in remedial terms is inversely proportional to the length of the process, so far as almost to be cancelled out?

               3.

               Within the scope of European Union law under Article 51 of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights], is it compatible with Article 47 of [that] Charter … and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights for the temporal duration and the physical demands of the procedure directly to damage the employee to the advantage of the employer and for the efficacy in remedial terms to be inversely proportional to the length of the procedure, so far as almost to be cancelled out?

               4.

               In the light of the explanations given in Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2000/78/EC (2) and Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2006/54/EC, (3) does the notion of ‘employment conditions’ referred to in Clause 4 of Directive 1999/70/EC also cover the consequences ensuing from the unlawful interruption of an employment relationship?

               5.

               In the event that [Question 4] is answered in the affirmative, is the difference between the consequences normally provided for under national law in relation to the unlawful interruption of a permanent employment relationship, on the one hand, and the consequences in the case of a fixed-term employment relationship, on the other, justifiable under Clause 4 [of Directive 1999/70/EC]?

               6.

               On a proper construction of the general Community law principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations, equality of arms in proceedings, effective judicial protection, and the right to an independent and impartial tribunal and, more generally, to a fair hearing, guaranteed by Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union (as amended by Article 1(8) of the Treaty of Lisbon and to which Article 46 of the Treaty on European Union refers), read in conjunction with Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950, and with Articles 46, 47 and 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed at Nice on 7 December 2000, as implemented by the Treaty of Lisbon, do those principles preclude the adoption by the Italian State, after a significant period of time, of a provision (such as Article 32(7) of Law No 83/10 as interpreted by Article 1(13) of Law No 92/12) which alters the consequences of ongoing proceedings directly to the detriment of the employee and to the advantage of the employer, the result being that the efficacy in remedial terms is inversely proportional to the length of the process, so far as almost to be cancelled out?

               7.

               In the event that the Court of Justice does not recognise the above principles as having the authority of fundamental principles of the European Union for the purposes of their horizontal application erga omnes, with the effect that a provision such as Article 32(5) to (7) of Law No 183/10 (as interpreted by Article 1(13) of Law No 92/12) is incompatible only with the obligations under Directive 1999/70/EC and the Charter [of Fundamental Rights], must a company such as the defendant company be regarded as a public body for the purposes of the direct, ‘ascending’ vertical application of European Union law and, in particular, of Clause 4 of Directive 1999/70/EC, and the Charter?

               8.

               In the event that the Court of Justice … answers Questions 1, 2, 3 or 4 in the affirmative, does the duty to cooperate in good faith — a fundamental principle of the European Union — make it possible for an interpretative provision, such as Article 1(13) of Law No 92/12, which makes it impossible to observe the principles confirmed by the answers to Questions 1 to 4, not to be applied?

      (1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).

      (2)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

      (3)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).


title: Case T-562/12: Action brought on 24 December 2012 — Dalli v Commission

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/24

         Action brought on 24 December 2012 — Dalli v Commission
   (Case T-562/12)
   2013/C 46/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: John Dalli (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: L. Levi, A. Alamanou and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the oral decision of 16 October 2012 of his termination of office with immediate effect, taken by the President of the European Commission;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay compensation of both the moral and material prejudice; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the entire costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 245 and 247 TFEU, as the challenged decision has been adopted by an non competent author.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging, on a subsidiary basis, violation of Article 17.6 TEU and of the general principle of legal certainty, as the challenged decision cannot be considered as entailing a valid resignation of the applicant.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging manifests errors and breach of procedural rules, as the challenged decision does not rest on valid grounds and the OLAF findings, on which the challenged decision is based, result from an illegal procedure.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the rights of defence, as the applicant was unable to make any appraisal and assessment of the facts to be held against him.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality, as the applicant was unable to know which are the objectives legitimately pursued by the challenged decision and if any possible other measure less punitive has been explored.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 April 2005 in Case C-329/04: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2000/43/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 28 April 2005
   in Case C-329/04: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2000/43/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 143/18)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-329/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Martin and H. Kreppel) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: C.-D Quassowski) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 29 July 2004 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, P. Kūris and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 April 2005, in which it:

               (1)

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               (2)

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 239 of 25. 09. 2004.


title: Case F-5/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 June 2015 — CX v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Disciplinary penalty — Removal from post — Failure by the Appointing Authority to hear the official concerned — Failure to uphold the right to be heard)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 June 2015 — CX v Commission
   (Case F-5/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Disciplinary penalty - Removal from post - Failure by the Appointing Authority to hear the official concerned - Failure to uphold the right to be heard))
   (2015/C 245/58)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CX (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the Commission’s decision to remove the applicant from his post under Article 9(1)(h) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations without reducing his pension entitlement following an internal investigation begun following an investigation by OLAF opened against an undertaking, and a claim for damages and interest for the non-material and material harm allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 16 October 2013 by which the European Commission imposed the penalty of removal from his post on CX without reducing his pension entitlement;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by CX, including those of the interim proceedings in Case F-5/14 R.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014, p. 27.


title: Case T-22/11: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2011 — Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/21

         Order of the General Court of 15 December 2011 — Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission
   (Case T-22/11) (1)

   2012/C 39/41
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Case C-48/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozialgericht by order of that Court of 19 December 2001 in the case of Cargo Ray Uluslararasi Tasimacilile ve LTD, Sezgin Ergin, Demirkapi Mahallesi and Vedat Calis against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit

text:
29.6.2002             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 156/3
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-                Appeal brought on 25 March 2002 by the European
gericht by order of that Court of 19 December 2001 in                  Parliament against the judgment delivered on 23 January
the case of Cargo Ray Uluslararasi Tasimacilile ve LTD,                2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
Sezgin Ergin, Demirkapi Mahallesi and Vedat Calis against              of the European Communities in Case T-237/00 between
                   Bundesanstalt für Arbeit                                   Patrick Reynolds and the European Parliament.
                                                                                (Case C-111/02 P)
                         (Case C-48/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 156/06)
                        (2002/C 156/05)
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 January 2002
                                                                       by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities in Case T-237/00 between Patrick
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 Reynolds and the European Parliament was brought before the
European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht               Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 March
(Federal Social Court) of 19 December 2001, received at the            2002 by the European Parliament, represented by Hannu von
Court Registry on 19 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling           Hertzen and Dominique Moore, acting as Agents, with an
in the case of Cargo Ray Uluslararasi Tasimacilile ve LTD,             address for service in Luxembourg.
Sezgin Ergin, Demirkapi Mahallesi and Vedat Calis against
Bundesanstalt für Arbeit on the following questions:
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
1.   Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association              —     set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
     Council of 19 September 1980 on the development                         Instance;
     of the Association between the European Economic
     Community and Turkey to be interpreted as prohibiting             —     decide the case definitively, by dismissing as unfounded
     a Member State of the Community from introducing                        the applications for annulment and for compensation;
     national provisions which, in comparison with the pos-
     ition under national law on 1 December 1980, lay down             —     alternatively, refer the case back to the Court of First
     new restrictions on access to the employment market for                 Instance so that it may determine anew Mr Reynolds’
     Turkish workers generally, or does the prohibition on                   applications for annulment and for compensation;
     introducing new restrictions under Article 13 of Decision
     No 1/80 relate only to the time when a worker is first            —     make such costs order as may be appropriate.
     legally resident and employed?
2.   Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association              Pleas in law and main arguments
     Council of 19 September 1980 on the development
     of the Association between the European Economic                  —     Insufficiency of the reasoning of the Court of First
     Community and Turkey also to be applied to workers                      Instance concerning the obligation of the appointing
     employed in Turkey, who, as long-distance lorry drivers                 authority to comply with the ‘minimum conditions’ in
     engaged in international haulage, regularly pass through                order to terminate the secondment of an official in the
     a Member State of the Community without belonging to                    interests of the service to the post of secretary-general of
     the legitimate labour force of that Member State?                       a political group.
3.   Is Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 Novem-          —     Failure to have regard to the case-law concerning the
     ber 1970 to the Agreement establishing an Association                   powers of the appointing authority.
     between the European Economic Community and Turkey
     to be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish worker is             —     Contradictory reasoning concerning the alleged discretion
     entitled to plead restriction, contrary to that protocol, of            of the appointing authority.
     the freedom to provide services?
                                                                       —     Failure to have regard to the case-law concerning the
                                                                             rights of the defence.
4.   Does a restriction on the freedom to provide services
     within the meaning of Article 41(1) of the Additional             —     Insufficient and contradictory reasoning concerning the
     Protocol exist where a Member State of the Community,                   significance of the consequences of reintegration on the
     from the entry into force of the Additional Protocol,                   material situation of the person seconded.
     abolishes a previously-existing exemption from the
     requirement to have a work permit for Turkish lorry               —     If the Parliament has not committed any unlawful act by
     drivers engaged in international haulage who are                        adopting the contested decision, there can be no question,
     employed by a (Turkish) employer, established in Turkey?                in the present case, of the Community incurring any non-
                                                                             contractual liability.


title: Case T-401/07: Action brought on 2 November 2007 — Caixa Geral de Depósitos v Commission

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/17

         Action brought on 2 November 2007 — Caixa Geral de Depósitos v Commission
   (Case T-401/07)
   (2008/C 8/33)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Caixa Geral de Depósitos SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: Nuno Mimoso Ruiz, Francisca Ponce de Leão Paulouro and Carla Farinhas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the action for annulment brought pursuant to Article 230 of the EC Treaty and, simultaneously and cumulatively, the action brought pursuant to Article 238 of the EC Treaty on the basis of the arbitration clause laid down in Article 18 of the agreement concluded on 15 November 1995 between the Commission and the CGD were brought in accordance with law;

               —

               annul Article 1 of Decision C(2007) 3772 of 31 July 2007 in accordance with Article 230 of the EC Treaty;

               —

               irrespective of whether the action brought pursuant to Article 230 of the EC Treaty is upheld or dismissed, uphold the action brought pursuant to Article 238 of the EC Treaty and the claim relating thereto and, consequently, order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 1 925 858,61, plus default interest at the statutory rate of 7 %, calculated from the date on which [formal] notice was given, namely 7 March 2003, until 30 April 2003 in accordance with Portaria (Decree) No 263/99 of 12 April 1999, and at the statutory rate of 4 % from 1 May 2003 onwards until full repayment of the debt in accordance with Portaria No 291/03 of 8 April 2003;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by the CGD.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Although, in theory, the State may refrain from requiring the CGD to repay the amount claimed by the Commission, the contested decision dismisses from the outset the possibility of the release of an amount owed by the Commission itself to the CGD.
   Given that, in the contested decision, the Commission does not make a distinction between the legal position of the State and that of the applicant, it is in the CGD's interests that that decision be annulled since, although it is addressed to the Portuguese Republic, it concerns the CGD individually and directly. The contested decision is vitiated by the following procedural errors:

               —

               Lack of reasoning: the contested decision does not contain any explanation of the way in which the Commission calculated the amount of the financial assistance paid in advance by the ERDF and which it considers should be returned to it. In addition, the statement of reasons is contradictory, contains omissions, inaccuracies and errors.

               —

               Error of fact: the contested decision presupposes that the intermediary is to pay the beneficiaries interest subsidies on the loans forming part of the global grant, when that is not the case, those subsidies are to be deducted from the interest which the beneficiaries owe to the CGD.

               —

               Error of law, infringement of the legal rules relating to the application of the EC Treaty and infringement of the agreement concluded between the Commission and the CGD: in the present case, the fact that, on 31 December 2001, the financial assistance granted by the ERDF corresponded to 82 % of the total amount of interest subsidies due is not contrary to Article 13(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 (1). It is true that Article 21(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (2) refers to advances or final payments in respect of ‘expenditure actually incurred’ but charges (not payments) also exist with interest subsidies which did not arise until after 31 December 2001. The debts corresponding to the flux of the residual ERDF subsidies (due for payment) of each loan may be certified by the Commission as ERDF expenses actually incurred and paid. Proof that expenses or charges have actually been incurred is not furnished by the advance payment of those subsidies to the final beneficiaries but by determining the obligations deriving — or ‘to be assumed’ — from binding loan contracts concluded and executed up until that date. There is no obligation whatsoever to anticipate the ‘payment of the subsidies’ which are due on 31 December 2001 or, in the alternative, to open a special account for the deposit of the national contribution.

               —

               Infringement of the principles of proportionality, legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations: in recitals 19 and 26 in the preamble to the contested decision the Commission justifies the alternative conditions for considering that expenses were actually incurred before 31 December 2001 in the light of the guidelines announced at a meeting of the CDCR (Committee on the Development and Conversion of Regions) held on 29 May 2002, those guidelines having been distributed in the CDCR after 31 December 2001. The applicant admits that those guidelines may contribute to ensuring the closing of the overall subsidies intended to subsidise interest payments and that the interest owed by the borrower is net of those subsidies. None the less, it is also necessary that the implementing decisions and the agreements reached have actually been designed in conformity with those solutions or are compatible with them, which is not the case with the SGAIA decision or the agreement in question. In the guidelines referred to above, the Commission admits that other methods exist for taking account of the expenses in question. One of those methods consists of the so-called ‘assumption’ of all the financing of the subsidies due after closure of the programme, which leads to the presumption that the legal guarantees are permissible. However, that ‘assumption’ actually takes place from the moment at which the CGD cannot require the beneficiaries to pay it more than the interest net of the subsidies. Thus, the contested decision ignores solutions which are more consistent with the SGAIA, easier to execute and less disadvantageous for the intermediary and for the beneficiaries and which are also capable of protecting the interests at stake. On the other hand, the Portuguese Republic and the CGD had legitimate expectations in relying on the subsidy in conditions which are different from those resulting from the guidelines referred to above since they were notified after the programme had been closed.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 of 24 June 1988 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 185, p. 9).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).


title: Joined Cases C-478/08 and C-479/08: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 March 2010 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Sicilia — Italy) — Buzzi Unicem SpA and Others (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — ‘Polluter pays’ principle — Directive 2004/35/EC — Environmental liability — Applicability ratione temporis — Pollution occurring before the date laid down for implementation of that directive and continuing after that date — National legislation imposing liability on a number of undertakings for the costs of remedying the damage connected with such pollution — Requirement for fault or negligence — Requirement for a causal link — Remedial measures — Duty to consult the undertakings concerned — Annex II to the directive)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/10

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 March 2010 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Sicilia — Italy) — Buzzi Unicem SpA and Others
   (Joined Cases C-478/08 and C-479/08) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - ‘Polluter pays’ principle - Directive 2004/35/EC - Environmental liability - Applicability ratione temporis - Pollution occurring before the date laid down for implementation of that directive and continuing after that date - National legislation imposing liability on a number of undertakings for the costs of remedying the damage connected with such pollution - Requirement for fault or negligence - Requirement for a causal link - Remedial measures - Duty to consult the undertakings concerned - Annex II to the directive)
   2010/C 134/16
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Sicilia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Buzzi Unicem SpA, ISAB Energy srl, Raffinerie Mediterranee SpA (ERG) (C-478/08), Dow Italia Divisione Commerciale Srl (C-479/08)

      Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero della Salute, Ministero Ambiente e Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero delle Infrastrutture, Ministero dei Trasporti, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Interno, Regione Siciliana, Assessorato Regionale Territorio ed Ambiente (Sicilia), Assessorato Regionale Industria (Sicilia), Prefettura di Siracusa, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Commissario Delegato per Emergenza Rifiuti e Tutela Acque (Sicilia), Vice Commissario Delegato per Emergenza Rifiuti e Tutela Acque (Sicilia), Agenzia Protezione Ambiente e Servizi Tecnici (APAT), Agenzia Regionale Protezione Ambiente (ARPA Sicilia), Istituto Centrale Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica Applicata al Mare, Subcommissario per la Bonifica dei Siti contaminati, Provincia Regionale di Siracusa, Consorzio ASI Sicilia Orientale Zona Sud, Comune di Siracusa, Comune di Augusta, Comune di Melilli, Comune di Priolo Gargallo, Azienda Unità sanitaria locale N. 8, Sviluppo Italia Aree Produttive SpA, Sviluppo Italia SpA (C-478/08), Ministero Ambiente e Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Ministero della Salute, Regione siciliana, Commissario Delegato per Emergenza Rifiuti e Tutela Acque (Sicilia) (C-479/08)

      Intervening parties: ENI Divisione Exploration and Production SpA, ENI SpA, Edison SpA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Sicilia — Interpretation of Article 174 EC and of Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56) and of the ‘polluter pays’ principle — National legislation which allows the public authorities to require private undertakings to implement remedial measures, irrespective of whether or not any preliminary investigation has been carried out to identify the party responsible for the pollution

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               In a situation entailing environmental pollution such as that at issue in the main proceedings:

                           —

                           Where the conditions for the application ratione temporis and/or ratione materiæ of Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage are not met, such a situation is governed by national law, in compliance with the rules of the Treaty, and without prejudice to other secondary legislation;

                           —

                           Directive 2004/35 does not preclude national legislation which allows the competent authority acting within the framework of the directive to operate on the presumption, also in cases involving diffuse pollution, that there is a causal link between operators and the pollution found on account of the fact that the operators’ installations are located close to the polluted area. However, in accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, in order for such a causal link thus to be presumed, that authority must have plausible evidence capable of justifying its presumption, such as the fact that the operator’s installation is located close to the pollution found and that there is a correlation between the pollutants identified and the substances used by the operator in connection with his activities;

                           —

                           Articles 3(1), 4(5) and 11(2) of Directive 2004/35 must be interpreted as meaning that, when deciding to impose measures for remedying environmental damage on operators whose activities fall within Annex III to the directive, the competent authority is not required to establish fault, negligence or intent on the part of operators whose activities are held to be responsible for the environmental damage. On the other hand, that authority must, first, carry out a prior investigation into the origin of the pollution found, and it has a discretion as to the procedures, means to be employed and length of such an investigation. Second, the competent authority is required to establish, in accordance with national rules on evidence, a causal link between the activities of the operators at whom the remedial measures are directed and the pollution;

                           —

                           since the operators are required to take remedial measures only because they have contributed to pollution, or to the risk of pollution, the competent authority must as a rule determine the extent to which each of those operators has contributed to the pollution which it is sought to remedy, and take into account the respective contribution of those operators when it calculates the cost of the remedial actions which it charges to them, without prejudice to Article 9 of Directive 2004/35.

               2.

               Articles 7 and 11(4) of Directive 2004/35, in conjunction with Annex II to the directive, must be interpreted as:

                           —

                           permitting the competent authority to alter substantially measures for remedying environmental damage which were chosen at the conclusion of a procedure carried out on a consultative basis with the operators concerned and which have already been implemented or begun to be put into effect. However, in order to adopt such a decision, that authority:

                                       —

                                       is required to give the operators on whom such measures are imposed the opportunity to be heard, except where the urgency of the environmental situation requires immediate action on the part of the competent authority;

                                       —

                                       is also required to invite, inter alia, the persons on whose land those measures are to be carried out to submit their observations and to take them into account;

                                       —

                                       must take account of the criteria set out in Section 1.3.1. of Annex II to Directive 2004/35 and state in its decision the grounds on which its choice is based, and, where appropriate, the grounds which justify the fact that there was no need for a detailed examination in the light of those criteria or that it was not possible to carry out such an examination due, for example, to the urgency of the environmental situation;

                           —

                           in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, Directive 2004/35 does not preclude national legislation which permits the competent authority to make the exercise by operators at whom environmental recovery measures are directed of the right to use their land subject to the condition that they carry out the works required by the authority, even though that land is not affected by those measures because it has already been decontaminated or has never been polluted. However, such a measure must be justified by the objective of preventing a deterioration of the environmental situation in the area in which those measures are implemented or, pursuant to the precautionary principle, by the objective of preventing the occurrence or resurgence of further environmental damage on the land belonging to the operators which is adjacent to the whole shoreline at which those remedial measures are directed.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.


title: Case T-159/09: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2012 — Biofrescos v Commission (Customs union — Frozen shrimps and prawns from Indonesia — Invalid certificates of origin — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Application for remission of import duties — Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2012 — Biofrescos v Commission
   (Case T-159/09) (1)

   (Customs union - Frozen shrimps and prawns from Indonesia - Invalid certificates of origin - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Application for remission of import duties - Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92)
   2012/C 227/23
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Biofrescos — Comércio de Produtos Alimentares, Lda (Linda-a-Velha, Portugal) (represented by: A. de Magalhães Menezes, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, P. Guerra e Andrade and L. Bouyon, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 72 final of 16 January 2009 finding that there should be post-clearance recovery of import duties and that remission of those duties is not justified in a particular case

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Biofrescos — Comércio de Produtos Alimentares, Lda to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 July 2005 in Case T-370/03 Jacques Wunenburger v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Post of Director of the Commission EuropeAid Co-operation Office — Vacancy notice — Rejection of candidature — Action for annulment — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Statement of reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/37

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 5 July 2005
   in Case T-370/03 Jacques Wunenburger v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Post of Director of the Commission EuropeAid Co-operation Office - Vacancy notice - Rejection of candidature - Action for annulment - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Statement of reasons - Manifest error of assessment)
   (2005/C 217/83)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-370/03: Jacques Wunenburger, official of the Commission of the European Communities, resident in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by É. Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and G. Berscheid with an address for service in Luxembourg) — request for annulment of, firstly, the Commission's decision not to appoint the applicant to the post of Director in the Directorate ‘Africa, Caribbean, Pacific’ of the EuropeAid Co-operation Office and, secondly, the decision to appoint another person to that post — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J. D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and I. Labucka, Judges; I. Natsinas, Principal Administrator for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 21 of 24.1.2004


title: Case C-522/15 P: Order of the President of the Court of 18 December 2015 — European Commission v Siderurgica Latina Martin SpA (SLM), Ori Martin SA

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/23

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 December 2015 — European Commission v Siderurgica Latina Martin SpA (SLM), Ori Martin SA
   (Case C-522/15 P) (1)

   (2016/C 136/32)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.


title: Case C-576/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — Маya Маrinova ET v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(a) — Article 9(1) — Article 14(1) — Articles 73, 80 and 273 — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality — Tax evasion — Anomalies in accounting — Concealment of supplies and revenue — Determination of the taxable amount)

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/5

      Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — Маya Маrinova ET v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
      (Case C-576/15) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(a) - Article 9(1) - Article 14(1) - Articles 73, 80 and 273 - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality - Tax evasion - Anomalies in accounting - Concealment of supplies and revenue - Determination of the taxable amount))
      (2016/C 441/07)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Маya Маrinova ET

         Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 2(1)(a), Article 9(1), Article 14(1) and Articles 73 and 273 of the Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, where goods are not in the warehouse of the taxable person to whom they have been supplied and the tax documents of relevance to those goods have not been recorded in the accounts of that taxable person, tax authorities may presume that the taxable person subsequently sold those goods to third parties and determine the taxable amount of the sale of those goods according to the factual information at hand pursuant to rules not provided for in that directive. It is, however, for the referring court to ascertain whether the provisions of the national legislation go further than is necessary to ensure the correct collection of VAT and to prevent evasion.

         (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case C-85/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Telefónica Móviles España, SA v Administración del Estado, Secretaría de Estado de Telecomunicaciones (Telecommunication services — Directive 97/13/EC — General authorisations and individual licences — Fees and charges applicable to undertakings holding individual licences — Article 11(2) — Interpretation — National legislation which does not allocate any special use to a fee — Increase in the fee for digital systems, but no change in the fee for first generation analogue systems — Compatibility)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Telefónica Móviles España, SA v Administración del Estado, Secretaría de Estado de Telecomunicaciones
   (Case C-85/10) (1)

   (Telecommunication services - Directive 97/13/EC - General authorisations and individual licences - Fees and charges applicable to undertakings holding individual licences - Article 11(2) - Interpretation - National legislation which does not allocate any special use to a fee - Increase in the fee for digital systems, but no change in the fee for first generation analogue systems - Compatibility)
   2011/C 139/16
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Telefónica Móviles España, SA

      Defendants: Administración del Estado, Secretaría de Estado de Telecomunicaciones

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 11(2) of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15) — Fees and charges applicable to undertakings holding individual licences — Imposition of pecuniary charges above and beyond those authorised by the directive and for a purpose not provided for therein — More advanced technologies penalised as compared with obsolete technologies

      Operative part of the judgment

   The requirements laid down in Article 11(2) of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications — under which a charge imposed on operators of telecommunications services for the use of scarce resources must seek to ensure optimal use of those resources and must take into account the need to foster the development of innovative services and competition — must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for a fee to be levied on operators of telecommunications services holding individual licences for the use of radio frequencies, but does not allocate a specific use to the income derived from that fee, and which significantly increases the fee for a particular technology but leaves it unchanged for another.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 December 2004 in Case C-48/04: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/76/EC — Incineration of waste — Failure to transpose)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 2 December 2004
   in Case C-48/04: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/76/EC - Incineration of waste - Failure to transpose)
   (2005/C 19/12)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   In Case C-48/04: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. Caeiros and M. Konstantinidis) v Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes and F. Andrade) – ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 6 February 2004 – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President of Chamber, N. Colneric and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, in particular those under Article 21(1) thereof;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 20.3.2004.


title: Case C-8/06 P: Appeal brought on  9 January 2006  by Anna Herrero Romeu against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of  25 October 2005  in Case T-298/02 Anna Herrero Romeu v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/27

         Appeal brought on 9 January 2006 by Anna Herrero Romeu against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case T-298/02 Anna Herrero Romeu v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-8/06 P)
   (2006/C 60/50)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case T-298/02 Anna Herrero Romeu v Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 January 2006 by Anna Herrero Romeu, represented by R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, D. Domínguez Pérez and A. Sayagués Torres, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               (1)

               Declare this appeal admissible;

               (2)

               Annul the judgment of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005;

               (3)

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay all the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and of those before the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This appeal is based on a single plea: infringement by the CFI of Community law in paragraphs 23 to 44 of the judgment under appeal. In particular, the appellant takes the view that the CFI incorrectly interpreted the term ‘circumstances arising from work done for another State’ used in the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations.


title: Case T-63/06: Action brought on  16 February 2006  — Eyropaïki Dynamiki v EMCDDA

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/45

         Action brought on 16 February 2006 — Eyropaïki Dynamiki v EMCDDA
   (Case T-63/06)
   (2006/C 86/84)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Eyropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) [represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer]

      Defendant: The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor,

               —

               order the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application as well as damages stemming from the tendering procedure.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submitted a bid in response to an open call for tender by the defendant for software programming and consultancy services (JO 2005/S 187-183846). The applicant contests the decision to reject its bid and to award the contract to another bidder.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the contested decision was taken in violation of the principle of non-discrimination and transparency, as well as in violation of Directive 92/50 (1) and the Financial Regulation (2). According to the applicant, its bid was rejected on criteria that were not included in the contract notice. The applicant also claims that the defendant failed to request clarifications from the applicant and therefore infringed the principle of good administration. Finally, the applicant submits that the contested decision contains evident errors of assessment.

      (1)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ L 209, p. 1)

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 248, p. 1)


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 July 2003 in Case C-457/00: Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Aid to the Belgian group Verlipack — Hollow container glass sector)

text:
23.8.2003               EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 200/3
compensatory aid to banana producers for the 1995 and 1996                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
campaigns — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of
D.A.O. Edward, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La
Pergola, P. Jann, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges;
J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judg-                                           of 10 July 2003
ment on 19 June 2003, in which it:
1.    Dismissed the action in its entirety;                                   in Case C-472/00 P: Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                                nities v Fresh Marine Company A/S (1)
2.    Ordered the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                              (Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the Community —
(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                                   Provisional anti-dumping and countervailing duties imposed
                                                                              on imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in
                                                                                Norway)
                                                                                (2003/C 200/05)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                            of 3 July 2003
in Case C-457/00: Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of
                  the European Communities (1)
                                                                              In Case C-472/00 P, Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                              nities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and S. Meany, assisted by N. Khan,
(State aid — Aid to the Belgian group Verlipack — Hollow                      barrister): Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
                        container glass sector)                               Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber,
                                                                              Extended Composition) of 24 October 2000 in Case T-178/98
                                                                              Fresh Marine v Commission [2000] ECR II-3331, seeking to
                           (2003/C 200/04)
                                                                              have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceed-
                                                                              ings being: Fresh Marine Company A/S, established in Trond-
                     (Language of the case: French)                           heim (Norway), represented by J.-F. Bellis and B. Servais,
                                                                              avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg, Fresh
                                                                              Marine Company A/S, established in Trondheim (Norway)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in     (represented by J.-F. Bellis and B. Servais), the Court (Third
                      the European Court Reports)                             Chamber,         Extended       Composition),        composed    of:
                                                                              G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen
                                                                              and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers),
                                                                              C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, V. Skouris, S. von
In Case C-457/00, Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx,                       Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges;
assisted by J.-M. De Backer, G. Vandersanden and L. Levi,                     C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Adminis-
avocats) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                     trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 July
G. Rozet): Application for annulment of Commission Decision                   2003, in which it:
2001/856/EC of 4 October 2000 concerning State aid to
Verlipack, Belgium (OJ 2001 L 320, p. 28), the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the
Fourth Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,                     1.    Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and S. von Bahr
(Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July
2003, in which it:                                                            2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
                                                                                the costs relating to the main appeal;
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                              3.    Orders Fresh Marine Company A/S to pay the costs relating to
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                               the cross-appeal.
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                                     (1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.


title: Case T-13/00: Action brought on 19 January 2000 by S.W.M. Baltussen and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.5.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 135/11
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               The applicants claim that the Court should:
                       of 22 February 2000                                (1) Declare the action to be admissible;
in Case T-22/99: Gustave Rose v Commission of the                         (2) Annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)
                   European Communities (1)                                   of 20 July 1999 or annul Articles 2 and 3 of the decision
                                                                              in so far as they provide, with reference to (one of) the
(Officials — Refusal of promotion — Guide to promotion                        applicants, that any amounts received by the applicant(s)
— Protection of legitimate expectations — Misuse of powers                    pursuant to the temporary arrangements (subsidies for
             — Examination of comparative merits)                             service stations along the border with Germany) are to be
                                                                              treated as constituting unlawful State aid within the
                          (2000/C 135/20)                                     meaning of Article 87(1) EC and/or must be repaid by the
                                                                              applicant(s), and/or in so far as it follows from that decision
                                                                              that any amounts which may or must be paid to the
                    (Language of the case: French)                            applicant(s) pursuant to the temporary arrangements are
                                                                              correctly classified as constituting unlawful aid for the
In Case T-22/99: Gustave Rose, an official of the Commission                  purposes of Article 87(1) EC;
of the European Communities, residing at Goutroux (Belgium),
represented by L. Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address             (3) Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of C. Kremer,
6 Rue Heinrich Heine, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and F. Duvieusart-                Pleas in law and main arguments
Clotuche) — application for annulment of the Commission’s
decision not to promote the applicant to grade C 1 in the
course of the 1998 promotions procedure — the Court                       The pleas in law and the main arguments are similar to those
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-               in Case T-318/99.
Valdecasas, President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges;
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given         (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
a judgment on 22 February 2000, in which it:
1. Annuls the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant
     to grade C 1 in the course of the 1998 promotions procedure;
2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
                                                                          Action brought on 19 January 2000 by CAV Ulestraten-
                                                                          Schimmert-Hulsberg and Others against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-14/00)
Action brought on 19 January 2000 by S.W.M. Baltussen
and Others against the Commission of the European                                                 (2000/C 135/22)
                            Communities
                           (Case T-13/00)                                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                          (2000/C 135/21)                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 19 January 2000 by CAV Ulestra-
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                          ten-Schimmert-Hulsberg and Others, established in Ulestraten
                                                                          (Netherlands), represented by G. van der Wal, of the Brussels
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-Rue.
European Communities on 19 January 2000 by S.W.M. Bal-
tussen and Others, established in Amsterdam (Netherlands),
represented by G. van der Wal, of the Brussels Bar, with an               The applicants claim that the Court should:
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May,
31 Grand-Rue.                                                             (1) Declare the action to be admissible;