title: Case C-78/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers (Belgium) lodged on 13 February 2017 — X v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/29

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers (Belgium) lodged on 13 February 2017 — X v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides
   (Case C-78/17)
   (2017/C 144/38)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X

      Defendant: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

      Questions referred

               A.

               Must Article 14(4) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) be interpreted as creating a new ground for exclusion from refugee status provided for in Article 13 of the Directive and, consequently, from Article 1A of the Geneva Convention?

               B.

               If the answer to question A is yes, is Article 14(4) of Directive 2011/95/EU, thus interpreted, compatible with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention, the exclusion clause laid down in Article 1F of the Convention being exhaustively worded and requiring strict interpretation?

               C.

               If the answer to question A is no, must Article 14(4) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted as introducing a ground for withdrawing refugee status which is not provided for in the Geneva Convention, compliance with which is required by Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

               D.

               If the answer to question C is yes, is Article 14(4) of Directive 2011/95/EU compatible with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention, as it introduces a ground for withdrawing refugee status for which no provision is made in the Geneva Convention, and for which no basis can be found in the Convention?

               E.

               If the answer to questions A and C is no, how can Article 14(4) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted in a manner consistent with Article 18 of the Charter and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention?

      (1)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 May 2002 in Case T-21/02: Giuseppe Atzeni and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Commission Decision 97/612/EC — State aid — Agricultural sector — Time-limits for bringing proceedings — Time-bar — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 202/28                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          24.8.2002
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                                of 29 May 2002
(1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.01.
                                                                            in Case T-21/02: Giuseppe Atzeni and Others v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Action for annulment — Commission Decision 97/612/EC
                                                                            — State aid — Agricultural sector — Time-limits for
                                                                                bringing proceedings — Time-bar — Inadmissibility)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                           (2002/C 202/46)
                           of 7 June 2002
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
in Case T-290/01: Land Brandenburg v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
        (Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate)                      In Case T-21/02: Giuseppe Atzeni, residing at Serdiana (Italy),
                                                                            and Others, represented by G. Dore and F. Ciulli, lawyers,
                                                                            v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Tri-
                          (2002/C 202/45)                                   antafyllou and V. Di Bucci) — application, principally, for
                                                                            annulment of Commission Decision 97/612/EC of 16 April
                                                                            1997 on aid granted by the Region of Sardinia, Italy, in the
                   (Language of the case: German)                           agriculture sector (OJ 1997 L 248, p. 27), alternatively for
                                                                            partial annulment of that decision to the extent that it provides
                                                                            for repayment of the aid granted — the Court of First Instance
                                                                            (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:
                                                                            J.D. Cooke, President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, P. Lindh,
In Case T-290/01: Land Brandenburg, represented by the                      N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
Ministry of Agriculture, Environment and Land Management,                   order on 29 May 2002, the operative part of which is as
Potsdam (Germany), represented by G. Schohe and T. Masing,                  follows:
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. zur
Hausen and M. Núñez-Müllers) — application for annulment
of the decision of the Commission contained in order for                    1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
recovery No 3240305411 of 13 September 2001 — the Court
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke,
President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung,             2.    There is no need to rule on the Council’s application for leave to
Registrar, made an order on 7 June 2002, the operative part of                    intervene.
which is as follows:
                                                                            3.    The applicants are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs
1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.                       of the Commission, including those relating to the procedure
                                                                                for interim measures.
2.    The Commission shall bear the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.
( 1) OJ 2002 C 44.


title: Case T-115/03: Action brought on 7 April 2003 by Samar SpA against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
7.6.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 135/35
                               —    Violation of the principle of         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                    continuity between the
                                    Opposition Division and the           —     annul the decisions of 30 April 2002 of the Director
                                    Board of Appeal in that the                 of the ‘Administration and Personnel Management for
                                    Board of Appeal refused to                  Luxembourg and Ispra’ Directorate in DG ADMIN refus-
                                    examine the applicant’s                     ing the applicant the installation allowance and daily
                                    request for proof of use.                   subsistence allowance during his secondment to Athens,
                                                                                and the installation allowance upon his return to Luxem-
                               —    Breach of Article 8(1) of
                                                                                bourg, and that limiting the transferable part of his salary
                                    Council Regulation 40/94 in
                                                                                to 35 % of his net emoluments from his place of
                                    that there is no likelihood of
                                                                                secondment to his place of work and habitual residence;
                                    confusion.
                               —    Breach of Article 8(2) (a) (ii)       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                    of Council Regulation 40/94
                                    in that the Board of Appeal
                                    failed to assess whether the
                                    national trade mark could
                                    validly be invoked to oppose          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                    the Community trade mark
                                    application      under     the
                                    national legislation.                 The applicant, who was stationed in Luxembourg, was second-
                                                                          ed in the interests of the service to the Greek Ministry of
                                                                          Health in Athens. By its contested decisions, the defendant
                                                                          refused him the installation allowance and daily subsistence
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the          allowance and limited the part of his salary he was allowed to
     Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).                                  transfer to Luxembourg to 35 %.
( 2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
     1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
     Community trade mark (OJ L 303, p. 1).
                                                                          With regard to the refusal of the installation allowance and the
                                                                          daily subsistence allowance, the applicant claims infringement
                                                                          of Articles 5 and 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations in
                                                                          support of his arguments. With regard to the 35 % cap on the
                                                                          amount of his salary that he was allowed to transfer to
                                                                          Luxembourg, he claims infringement of Article 38(d) of the
                                                                          Staff Regulations and of Article 17 of Annex VII to the Staff
                                                                          Regulations.
Action brought on 31 March 2003 by Georgios Gouvras
     against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          Action brought on 7 April 2003 by Samar SpA against
                          (Case T-113/03)                                 the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                                (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                         (2003/C 135/56)
                                                                                (Case T-115/03)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                                  (2003/C 135/57)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
European Communities on 31 March 2003 by Georgios                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
Gouvras, resident in Bereldange, Luxembourg, represented by               the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis, Etienne Marchal and Sébastien             7 April 2003 by Samar SpA, represented by Alessandro Ruo,
Orlandi, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.              lawyer.
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/36               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         7.6.2003
The other party in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal               Action brought on 7 April 2003 by Oreste Montalto
was Grotto spa.                                                                       against the Council of the European Union
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                         (Case T-116/03)
—     annul the contested decision which forms the subject-
                                                                                (2003/C 135/58)
      matter of these proceedings; in the alternative, declare
      there is no likelihood of confusion between the signs in
      question so far as concerns all the goods requested except
      for jeans, in respect of which there is a likelihood of                                  (Language of the case: French)
      confusion or, at least, so far as concerns all those goods
      which the Court does not consider likely to be confused
      and, accordingly annul the contested decision so far as
      such goods are concerned;
                                                                            An action against the Council of the European Union was
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                            Communities on 7 April 2003 by Oreste Montalto, resident
                                                                            in Alicante (Spain), represented by Georges Vandersanden,
                                                                            avocat.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Applicant for Com-             The applicant
munity trade mark:                                                          —     annul the decision of the Council, taken by its President
                                                                                on 23 May 2002, appointing an additional Chairman of
Community trade mark           Word mark ‘GAS STATION’ —                          a Board of Appeal, also President of the Appeals Depart-
sought:                        application No 712647, regis-                      ment of the OHIM, and thereby rejecting the applicant’s
                               tration sought in respect of goods                 candidature for the same post;
                               in Class 25 (‘Clothing, footwear,
                               headgear’)
                                                                            —     award the applicant compensation for the material and
                                                                                non-material loss suffered, provisionally assessed at
Proprietor of mark or          Grotto S.p.A.                                      EUR 20 000;
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:
                                                                            —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Mark or sign cited in          Italian trade mark ‘BLUE JEANS
opposition:                    GAS’ registered in respect of
                               goods in Class 25 (‘trousers, jack-
                               ets, jeans, shirts, skirts, heavy jack-
                               ets, sports jerseys, sweaters, tail-
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                               ored jackets, stockings, socks,
                               footwear, boots, slippers’)
Decision of the Oppo-          Registration refused                         The applicant is an official of the Office for Harmonisation in
sition Division:                                                            the Internal Market (OHIM). In response to a vacancy notice,
                                                                            he submitted his candidature for the post of Chairman of a
Decision of the Board of       Appeal dismissed                             Board of Appeal of the OHIM. Another candidate was
Appeal:                                                                     appointed to that post by the contested decision and the
                                                                            applicant’s candidature was accordingly rejected. In support of
                                                                            his claims, the applicant makes two pleas in law. The first plea
Pleas in law:                  Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)            alleges infringement of the selection procedure. In that respect,
                               of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 inas-            the applicant argues that the selection procedure was entrusted
                               much as the trade marks in ques-             to a private company and that both the competent authorities
                               tion are not to be considered                within the OHIM and the defendant had in reality abdicated
                               similar for the purposes of that             their power of supervision by simply ratifying the conclusions
                               provision                                    to which that company came. He also argues that the contested
                                                                            decision should have been taken by the President of the OHIM
                                                                            and not by the defendant. The second plea alleges manifest
                                                                            errors of assessment and an infringement of the principle of


title: Case F-125/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 November 2007 — Deffaa v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Reform of the Staff Regulations — Transfer — Post of Director-General — Grading — Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations — Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations — Second paragraph of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations — Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations — Management premium)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/45

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 November 2007 — Deffaa v Commission
   (Case F-125/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Transfer - Post of Director-General - Grading - Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations - Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations - Second paragraph of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations - Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations - Management premium)
   (2007/C 315/87)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Walter Deffaa (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of the President of the Commission of 12 January 2006 promoting the applicant to the post of Director-General, in so far as it grades him in step 4 of Grade A*15, with effect from 1 August 2004.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006, p. 32.


title: Case C-152/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1st December 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 — Common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator — Article 16(1) and (5) — National electronic register of road transport undertakings — No interconnection with the national electronic registers of other Member States)

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/15

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1st December 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-152/16) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 - Common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator - Article 16(1) and (5) - National electronic register of road transport undertakings - No interconnection with the national electronic registers of other Member States))
   (2017/C 030/16)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, Agent)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: D. Holderer, Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               (1)

               Declares that, by failing to have established a national electronic register of road transport undertakings which complies fully and which is interconnected with the national electronic registers of the other Member States, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC.

               (2)

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.


title: Case C-666/16 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2016 by Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH and Ecolab Deutschland GmbH against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 October 2016 in Case T-543/15: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH and Ecolab Deutschland GmbH v European Chemicals Agency

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/26

         Appeal brought on 21 December 2016 by Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH and Ecolab Deutschland GmbH against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 October 2016 in Case T-543/15: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH and Ecolab Deutschland GmbH v European Chemicals Agency
   (Case C-666/16 P)
   (2017/C 053/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (represented by: M. Grunchard, avocate, K. Van Maldegem, avocat, P. Sellar, Advocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of the General Court in Case T-543/15; and

               —

               rule on admissibility and refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the merits of the case;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the admissibility of appellants’ application for annulment of the contested act; and, as appropriate, thereafter to rule on the merits of the case;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs related to the objection to admissibility before the General Court).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants submit that the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the law which led it to err in law in declaring the appellants’ application for annulment of the contested act inadmissible.
   In particular, the appellants contend that the General Court committed a number of errors in its reasoning and in its interpretation of the legal framework as applicable to the appellants’ situation. That resulted in the General Court making the following errors in law:

               —

               The General Court erred in its interpretation and application of article 130, paragraph 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, by entering into the substantive merits of the case;

               —

               The General Court erred in its interpretation and application of article 130, paragraph 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, by failing to reserve its judgment on admissibility until it had heard a full exposition of the arguments on the substance of the case.

         Furthermore, by declaring the appellants’ application inadmissible, the General Court infringed the appellants’ rights of defence, their right of access to justice and the duty to state reasons which pertain to fundamental rights of the individuals and thus reflect general principles of EU law.
   For these reasons the appellants claim that the order of the General Court in Case T-543/15 should be set aside and the Court should rule on admissibility and refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the merits of the case.


title: Case T-335/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 May 2007 — Italy v Commission (Health requirements — Italian market for poultrymeat — Failure of the Commission to take exceptional measures to alleviate the consequences of the epidemic of avian influenza — Action for a declaration of failure to act — Definition of position bringing the failure to act to an end — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/26

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 May 2007 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-335/06) (1)

   (Health requirements - Italian market for poultrymeat - Failure of the Commission to take exceptional measures to alleviate the consequences of the epidemic of avian influenza - Action for a declaration of failure to act - Definition of position bringing the failure to act to an end - No need to adjudicate)
   (2007/C 170/53)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by G. Aiello, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by C. Cattabriga, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Action for a declaration of failure to act brought on the basis of Article 232 EC and seeking a declaration that the Commission failed to comply with the obligations imposed on it under Article 14 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat (OJ 1975 L 282, p. 77) by failing to adopt exceptional measures to support the market in the poultrymeat sector, in the form of compensation for the producers of day-old chickens affected by veterinary measures taken in order to alleviate the consequences of avian influenza and restricting their movement during the period from December 1999 to September 2003.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action;

               2.

               Each party is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case C-14/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2007 — Ingenieurbüro Michael Weiss und Partner GbR v Industrie und Handelskammer Berlin, intervener: Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners Ltd

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2007 — Ingenieurbüro Michael Weiss und Partner GbR v Industrie und Handelskammer Berlin, intervener: Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners Ltd
   (Case C-14/07)
   (2007/C 56/41)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Ingenieurbüro Michael Weiss und Partner GbR

      Respondent to the appeal on a point of law: Industrie und Handelskammer Berlin

      Intervener: Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners Ltd.
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (1) of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (‘the Regulation’) be interpreted as meaning that an addressee does not have the right to refuse to accept a document pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Regulation if only the annexes to a document to be served are not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative:
               Must Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation be interpreted as meaning that the addressee ‘understands’ the language of a Member State of transmission within the meaning of that regulation because, in the exercise of his business activity, he agreed in a contract with the applicant that correspondence was to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission?

               3.

               If the answer to the second question is in the negative:
               Must Article 8(1) of the Regulation be interpreted as meaning that the addressee may not in any event rely on that provision in order to refuse acceptance of such annexes to a document, which are not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands, if the addressee concludes a contract in the exercise of his business activity in which he agrees that correspondence is to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission and the annexes transmitted concern that correspondence and are written in the agreed language?

      (1)  OJ L 160, 2000, p. 37.


title: Case T-126/05: Action brought on 9 March 2005 by Sandrine Corvoisier and Others against the European Central Bank

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/31

         Action brought on 9 March 2005 by Sandrine Corvoisier and Others against the European Central Bank
   (Case T-126/05)
   (2005/C 132/56)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the European Central Bank was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 March 2005 by Sandrine Corvoisier, residing in Frankfurt-am-Main, Roberta Friz, residing in Frankfurt-am-Main, Hundjy Preud'homme, residing in Frankfurt, and Elvira Rosati, residing in Frankfurt-am-Main, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul vacancy notice ECB/156/04 aimed at filling six posts as ‘Records Management Specialists’,

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the decisions rejecting the ‘administrative reviews’ and ‘grievance procedures’ brought by the applicants, decisions dated 1 October and 21 December 2004 respectively and notified between 27 December 2004 and 13 January 2005,

               —

               annul any decision taken in implementation of the vacancy notice and, in particular, recruitment decisions,

               —

               order the defendant to produce its administrative file,

               —

               order the defendant to award damages for pecuniary harm, which should be assessed on an equitable basis and provisionally at EUR 40 000, and for non-pecuniary harm, which should be assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 4,

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants occupy posts at the ECB as ‘Research Analysts’, in grade E/F. One of the conditions required for access to their post was that the person concerned must hold a university degree.
   On 13 July 2004, the applicant published the vacancy notice in question, aimed at recruiting six ‘Records Management Specialists’ in order to assist in and supplement the Bank's archives unit. Those posts were classified in the same grade as the applicants' posts, i.e. in grade E/F. The vacancy notice required that candidates had completed their secondary education.
   In support of their action, the applicants claim that there has been a breach of Article 20.2 of the Internal Rules of the ECB, the ECB 's Guidelines on the ‘development track’, of the administrative circular on recruitment and also of the principle patere legem ipse quam fecisti. They refer to the fact that a university degree was an essential requirement for their recruitment whereas the contested notice required only completion of secondary education; they also rely on a breach of the principle of non-discrimination. The applicants further claim that there has been a breach of Articles 45 and 46 of the Conditions of Employment, relying on the fact that there was no prior consultation of the Staff Committee. Last, the applicants claim that there has been a manifest error of assessment.


title: Appeal brought on 23 February 1998 by European Fertiliser Manufacturers Association (EFMA) against the judgment delivered on 17 December 1997 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-121/95 between European Fertiliser Manufacturers Association (EFMA) and Council of the European Union, supported by the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-46/98 P)

text:
C 137/8              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.5.98
Appeal brought on 23 February 1998 by European                           analyses, submitted by EFMA to demonstrate the
Fertiliser Manufacturers Association (EFMA) against the                  absence of difference between Russian and
judgment delivered on 17 December 1997 by the Fourth                     Community urea, concerned ex-Russian factory urea
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First                     whereas the Russian urea used for the purpose of these
Instance of the European Communities in case T-121/                      analyses was, in fact, taken from the Community
95 (1) between European Fertiliser Manufacturers                         market,
Association (EFMA) and Council of the European Union,
       supported by the Commission of the European
                         Communities                                Ð incorrect legal characterisation of the facts by the
                                                                         Court of First Instance in that, on the basis of the
                      (Case C-46/98 P)                                   information/evidence available to EFMA during the
                        (98/C 137/17)                                    administrative proceedings, the Court of First Instance
                                                                         could not reasonably affirm that EFMA's right to a
                                                                         fair hearing was not infringed,
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 December
1997 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities             Ð violation of Article 173 of the EC Treaty in the sense
in    case    T-121/95     between      European     Fertiliser          that the Court of First Instance failed to grant a
Manufacturers Association (EFMA) and the Council of                      judicial protection to EFMA by its refusal to take into
the European Union, supported by the Commission of the                   account the Z/Yen report.
European Communities, was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 23 February                  (1) OJ C 189, 22.7.1995, p. 18.
1998 by European Fertiliser Manufacturers Association
(EFMA), represented by Dominique Voillemot and Olivier
Prost, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11,
rue Goethe.
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
                                                                    Bremen by order of that court of 2 February 1998 in the
                                                                        case of Söhl & Söhlke against Hauptzollamt Bremen
1. annul the decision of the Court of First Instance dated
    17 December 1997 on the points of law described in                                      (Case C-48/98)
    the present appeal;                                                                      (98/C 137/18)
2. refer the matter back to the Court of First Instance if
    necessary;                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht
3. order the Council to pay the costs of the proceeding             Bremen (Finance Court, Bremen) of 2 February 1998,
    before the Court of First Instance and the costs of the         received at the Court Registry on 24 February 1998, for a
    present proceeding before the Court of Justice.                 preliminary ruling in the case of Söhl & Söhlke against
                                                                    Hauptzollamt Bremen on the following questions.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    1. Does Article 859 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
Ð absence of statement of reasons in that the Court of                   No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for
    First Instance failed to indicate the reason for which it            the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
    refused to examine the first and the second pleas in                 No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs
    law put forward by EFMA in its application before                    Code (1) (the implementing Regulation) contain a
    the Court of First Instance,                                         validly constituted and exhaustive set of rules on
                                                                         failures, within the meaning of Article 204(1)(a) of
Ð violation of Article 173 of the EC Treaty in that the                  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October
    Court of First Instance apparently considered that                   1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2)
    EFMA did not have an interest for the determination                  (the Customs Code), which have no significant effect
    of the first and second pleas in law it put forward in               on the correct operation of the temporary storage or
    its application before the Court of First Instance,                  customs procedure in question'?
Ð substantive inaccuracy of the Court of First Instance             2. If question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:
    findings and distortion of evidence in that the Court of
    First Instance based its findings for the quality                    (a) Where an application is made in time for an
    adjustment on a percentage figure allegedly agreed by                     extension of the time limit referred to in
    EFMA, but which, in fact, was not,                                        Article 859(1) of the implementing Regulation, is
                                                                              the national court precluded from examining of its
Ð substantive inaccuracy of the Court of First Instance                       own motion the criteria for the grant of such an
    findings and distortion of evidence in that the Court of                  extension where it has been refused by a now
    First Instance affirmed that the technical and chemical                   unappealable decision of the customs authority?


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 November 1995 in Case T-330/94 Salt Union Ltd. v. Commission of the European Communities (Intervention - Rules on Languages)

text:
17 . 2 . 96            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 46/ 15
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                         ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                     of 17 November 1995                                     OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in Case T-330/94 Salt Union Ltd . v. Commission of the                                   of 12 December 1995
                   European Communities ( 1 )                       in Case T-203/95 R, Bernard Connolly v. Commission of
             (Intervention — Rules on Languages)                                      the European Communities
                          ( 96/C 46/28 )                                                       ( 96/C 46/29 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                    In Case T-203/95 R: Bernard Connolly, an official of the
                                                                    Commission of the European Communities, resident at
In Case T-330/94 Salt Union Ltd, established in Cheshire            Everberg ( Belgium ), represented by Jacques Sambon and
( United Kingdom ), represented by Jonathan Scott and Craig         Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten, both of the Brussels Bar, with an
Pouncey, Solicitors, with an address for service in                 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Baden, 8                      Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Reinsheim, against the Commission
Boulevard Royal , v. Commission of the European                     of the European Communities (Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia
Communities ( Agents : Nicholas Khan and Jean-Paul                  and Julian Currall ) — application for interim measures
Keppenne ) — application, first, for the annulment of the           prohibiting the Commission from communicating to the
decision contained in a letter of 5 August 1994 in which the        press information concerning the disciplinary proceedings
Commission informed the applicant that it had found no              brought against the applicant whilst those proceedings are
ground for proposing any appropriate measures within the            in progress as well as information concerning his career,
meaning of Article 93 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty with regard to the     personality, opinions or health, and ordering the
Netherlands regional aid scheme 'Subsidieregeling regionale         Commission to take all necessary measures to ensure that no
investeringsprojecten 1991 ' and, secondly, for an order that       such information is made public, and, secondly, ordering the
the Community should indemnify the applicant for the                Commission to pay the applicant a periodic penalty of Bfr
damage it considers it has suffered as a result of that              100 000 for every breach committed as from the date of the
decision, the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber,               interim order — the President of the Court of First Instance
extended composition ), composed of C. P. Briët, President,         has made an order on 12 December 1995 , the operative part
B. Vesterdorf, K. Lenaerts, P. Lindh and A. Potocki, Judges,        of which is as follows ::
H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 17 November
 1995 in which it :
                                                                     1 . The Commission is reminded to take all necessary
                                                                         measures to ensure that no information concerning Mr
                                                                         Connolly 's career, personality, opinions or health, likely
 1 . grants Frima BV leave to intervene in support of the                to harm, directly or indirectly, his personal and
     form of order sought by the Commission;                             professional reputation, is disclosed by its staff in
                                                                         contacts with the press or in any other manner.
2 . grants Verein Deutsche Salzindustrie eV leave to
     intervene in support of the form of order sought by Salt       2 . The remainder of the application for interim measures is
                                                                         dismissed.
      Union, in so far as it is based on Article 1 73 of the
      Treaty;
                                                                    3.   Costs are reserved.
 3 . orders a period to be prescribed within which the
      interveners must state in writing the pleas relied on in
     support of the forms of order which they seek;
4 . grants the requests submitted by Frima BV and Verein
      Deutsche Salzindustrie eV to be authorized to use Dutch
                                                                    Action brought on 27 November 1995 by Telecom Italia
      and German, respectively, in the oral procedure;
                                                                     SpA against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
 5 . reserves the costs .                                                                   ( Case T-2 15/95 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 46/30 )
 (') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-76/10: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovak Republic)) — Pohotovost’ s.r.o. v Iveta Korčkovská (Preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms — Directive 2008/48/EC — Directive 87/102 — Consumer credit contracts — Annual percentage rate of charge — Arbitration proceedings — Arbitration award — Power of the national court to examine of its own motion whether certain terms are unfair)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/12

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovak Republic)) — Pohotovost’ s.r.o. v Iveta Korčkovská
   (Case C-76/10) (1)

   (Preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms - Directive 2008/48/EC - Directive 87/102 - Consumer credit contracts - Annual percentage rate of charge - Arbitration proceedings - Arbitration award - Power of the national court to examine of its own motion whether certain terms are unfair)
   2011/C 30/18
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Krajský súd v Prešove

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pohotovost’ s.r.o.

      Defendant: Iveta Korčkovská

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Krajský súd v Prešove — Interpretation of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) and Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66) — Consumer credit contract stipulating an usurious interest rate and recourse to arbitration proceedings in the case of dispute — Power of the national court hearing a case concerning the enforcement of a final arbitration award to examine of its own motion whether those terms are unfair

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts requires a national court, hearing an application for enforcement of a final arbitral award issued without the participation of the consumer, of its own motion, where the necessary information on the legal and factual state of affairs is available to it for this purpose, to consider the fairness of the penalty contained in a credit agreement concluded by a creditor with a consumer, that penalty having been applied in that award, if, according to national procedural rules, such an assessment may be conducted in similar proceedings under national law.

               2.

               It is for the national court concerned to determine whether a term in a credit agreement such as that at issue in the main proceedings providing, according to the findings of that court, for the consumer to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation must, in the light of all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract, be regarded as unfair within the meaning of Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 93/13. If that is the case, it is for that court to establish all the consequences thereby arising under national law, in order to ensure that the consumer is not bound by that term.

               3.

               In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the failure to mention the APR in a consumer credit contract, the mention of the APR being essential information in the context of Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit, as amended by Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998, may be a decisive factor in the assessment by a national court of whether a term of a consumer credit agreement concerning the cost of that credit in which no such mention is made is written in plain, intelligible language within the meaning of Article 4 of Directive 93/13. If that is not the case, that court has the power to assess, of its own motion, whether, in the light of all the circumstances attending the conclusion of that contract, the failure to mention the APR in the term of that contract concerning the cost of that credit is likely to confer on that term an unfair nature within the meaning of Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 93/13.
               However, notwithstanding the power which is given to assess that contract in the light of Directive 93/13, Directive 87/102 is to be interpreted as allowing national courts to apply of their own motion the provisions transposing Article 4 of the latter directive into national law and as providing that the failure to mention the APR in a consumer credit contract means that the credit granted is deemed to be interest-free and free of charge.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 7 February 2002 in Case C-276/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): Turbon International GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz (Common customs tariff — Tariff headings — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature of ink-cartridges compatible with Epson Stylus Colour printers — Inks (heading 3215) — Parts and accessories of machines under heading 8471 (heading 8473))

text:
6.4.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 84/27
Battistello Venanzio & C. Sas and Istituto nazionale per                   L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL), on the            No 1734/96 of 9 September 1996 (OJ 1996 L 238, p. 1), the
interpretation of Articles 85, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now             Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting
Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC),the Court (Fifth Chamber),                for the President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola and
composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the Fourth Chamber,                 C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General:
acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward,              J. Mischo, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on
A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmer-                 7 February 2002, in which it has ruled:
mans, Judges, Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs, Registrar: H. von
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 January
2002, in which it has ruled:                                               Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987
                                                                           on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common
                                                                           Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
The concept of an undertaking, within the meaning of Articles 85           No 1734/96 of 9 September 1996, must be interpreted as meaning
and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC), does not           that an ink-cartridge without integrated print head, consisting of
cover a body which is entrusted by law with the management of a            plastic casing, foam, a metal screen, seals, tape seal, labels, ink and
scheme providing insurance against accidents at work and occu-             packing material, which, as regards both the cartridge and the ink,
pational diseases, such as the Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione      can only be used in a printer with the same characteristics as ink-jet
contro gli infortuni sul lavori (INAIL).                                   Epson Stylus Colour printers, is to be classified under sub-heading
                                                                           No 3215 90 80 of the Combined Nomenclature.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           7 February 2002
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
in Case C-276/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): Turbon Inter-
     national GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz (1)                                                 7 February 2002
(Common customs tariff — Tariff headings — Classification                  in Case C-328/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
in the Combined Nomenclature of ink-cartridges compatible                  the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Regensburg): Maria
with Epson Stylus Colour printers — Inks (heading 3215)                           Weber and Martin Weber v Freistaat Bayern (1)
— Parts and accessories of machines under heading 8471
                           (heading 8473))
                                                                           (Common agricultural policy — Support system for oil-seeds
                            (2002/C 84/43)                                           — Validity of Regulation (EEC) No 525/93)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                                     (2002/C 84/44)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                        (Language of the case: German)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-276/00: Reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hessisches
Finanzgericht, Kassel (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Turbon
International GmbH, acting in its capacity as successor to                 In Case C-328/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Kores Nordic Deutschland GmbH, and Oberfinanzdirektion                     EC by the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Regensburg (Germ-
Koblenz, on the interpretation of headings 3215 and 8473 of                any) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation                 that court between Maria Weber, Martin Weber and Freistaat
(EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical             Bayern, on the validity of Commission Regulation (EEC)
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987                     No 525/93 of 8 March 1993 establishing the value of the final


title: Appeal by the Associazione Agricoltori della Provincia di Rovigo, Cirillo Brena, Associazione Polesana Coltivatori Diretti di Rovigo and Consorzio Cooperative Pescatori del Polesine against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 21 February 1995 in Case T-117/94, Associazione Agricoltori della Provincia di Rovigo, Consorzio Cooperative Pescatori del Polesine, Cirillo Brena, Mauro Girello and Greguoldo Daniele against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-142/95 P)

text:
12 . 8 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 208/ 1
                                                                   I
                                                            (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
References for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                  Agricoltori della Provincia di Rovigo, Cirillo Brena,
Circondariale di Torino by orders of that court of 10 March           Associazione Polesana Coltivatori Diretti di Rovigo and
1995 and 18 April 1995 in criminal proceedings pending                Consorzio Cooperative Pescatori del Polesine, represented
        before that court against unidentified persons                by Yvone Cacciavillani , with an address for service in
                ( Cases C-74/95 and C-129/95 )                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
                                                                      Albert l er, against the order of the Court of First Instance of
                          ( 95/C 208/01 )
                                                                      the European Communities of 21 February 1995 in Case
                                                                      T-l 17/94 against the Commission of the European
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                Communities .
European Communities by orders of the Pretura
Circondariale ( District Magistrate's Court ), Turin, of
10 March 1995 and 18 April 1995 , which were received at              The appellants claims that the Court should :
the Court Registry on, respectively, 30 March 1995 and
20 April 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal              ( a ) annul the order of the Court of First Instance of
proceedings pending before that court against unidentified                  21 February 1995 in Case T-l 17/94 ( 1 ), which declared
persons on a question concerning the interpretation of                      inadmissible the appellant's action under Article 173 of
Council Directive 90/270/EEC (') on the minimum safety                      the EC Treaty;
and health requirements for work with display screen
equipment and, in particular, of Article 2 ( c ), Article 9(1 )       ( b ) declare the action admissible:
and ( 2 ), Article 4 and Article 5 in conjunction with
Article 2 ( b ) and (c ), and of Article 4 and Article 5 in           (c ) reimburse the appellant's costs , as provided for by
conjunction with Sections 2 and 3 of the Annex to the                       law .
Directive .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
(M OJ No L 156 , 29 . 5 . 1990 , p . 14 .
                                                                      The appellants allege error of law, infringement of the
                                                                      second paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty, and error
                                                                      in the premise that the conditions for an action were not
                                                                      met. By its contested decision, the Commission of the
Appeal by the Associazione Agricoltori della Provincia di             European Communities financed a programme of actions
Rovigo, Cirillo Brena, Associazione Polesana Coltivatori              instrumental in creating a Po Delta park . Such measures,
Diretti di Rovigo and Consorzio Cooperative Pescatori del             which affected only the delta and were expressly aimed at
Polesine against the order of the Court of First Instance of          preserving its habitat in anticipation of the future park,
the European Communities of 21 February 1995 in Case                  required that agricultural interests, or at least the
T-l 17/94 , Associazione Agricoltori della Provincia di               organizations most representative of such interests, should
                                                                      be consulted .
Rovigo, Consorzio Cooperative Pescatori del Polesine,
Cirillo Brena, Mauro Girello and Greguoldo Daniele
  against the Commission of the European Communities                  Although there is no specific provision expressly requiring
                                                                      the state to consult the economic and social interests
                       ( Case C-142/ 95 P )                           concerned , there can nevertheless be no doubt as to the
                          ( 95 /C 208/02 )                            existence of qualities which are peculiar to them or of
                                                                      factual situations which differentiate them from all other
An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice of the              persons, sufficient to confer an interest in bringing an action
European Communities on 4 May 1 995 by the Associazione               under Article 173 of the EC Treaty.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 208/2              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12 . 8 . 95
Under Community case-law, the applicant associations                          seed , colza seed and sunflower seed for the 1994/95
were individually concerned by the contested decision, since                  marketing year (*);
the capacity to negotiate in Community matters in relation
to a given policy constitutes sufficient capacity for an                ( b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
association representing a category of persons to challenge a
Community decision which is not addressed to it
individually but which concerns that policy.                            Contentions       and principal      arguments     adduced       in
                                                                        support:
I 1 ) OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 , p . 8 .
                                                                        — As regards the reduction by 20 % of the amount of the
                                                                            compensatory payment to be made to the Portuguese
                                                                             producers of sunflower seeds (Annex I, II ( 2 ) of the
                                                                            contested Regulation ): miscalculation of the overshoot
                                                                             of the maximum guaranteed area ( MGA ) by the
                                                                             Portuguese producers of sunflower seeds:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Toulouse Police
Court by order of that court of 4 April 1995 in the case of                 — The reduction of the basic EC-12 area resulting from
            Ministere Public v. Jean-Louis Maurin                                set-aside was not applicable to the Portuguese
                         ( Case C-144/95 )                                       producers who, in the 1994/95 marketing year,
                            ( 95/C 208/03 )                                      qualified for different treatment, as prescribed by the
                                                                                Act of Accession . Thus, the overshoot by the
                                                                                Portuguese producers of the MGA for the growing of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           sunflower seeds should have been determined by the
European Communities by an order of the Toulouse Police                          Commission by reference to the MGA of 122 000
Court of 4 April 1995 , which was lodged at the Court                            hectares and not by the method adopted by the
Registry on 10 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the                        Commission, namely on the basis of that area subject
case of Ministere Public ( Public Prosecutor's Office ) v.                       to a deduction of 15 % in respect of set-aside .
Jean-Louis Maurin on the following question :
                                                                             — In any event, the Commission miscalculated the area
Is the procedure for establishing whether an offence has                         on which, in that marketing year, the Portuguese
been committed , as laid down by the Law of 1 August 1905                        producers could grow sunflowers without being
on frauds and falsifications relating to products or services                    penalized . Under the Blair House Agreement, which
concerning the labelling and presentation of food products,                      was transposed into Community legislation, the area
and, more particularly, the fact that a report is not signed by                  within the Community territory sown by small
the person concerned by an investigation, compatible with                        producers cannot be taken into account by the
 the general principles of law elicited by the Court of Justice,                 Commission in calculating the overshoot of the
such as observance of the rights of the defence and of the                       National Reference Areas : account should be taken
adversarial nature of proceedings ?                                              only of the area cultivated by producers operating
                                                                                under the general regime ('professional' producers ).
                                                                                Since the Portuguese 'professional ' producers
                                                                                cultivated 103 875 hectares rather than the 103 700
                                                                                hectares ( 122 000 less 15 % in respect of set-aside )
                                                                                which could be cultivated without penalty, there was
                                                                                practically no overshoot of the MGA.
 Action brought on 12 May 1995 by the Portuguese Republic
              against the European Commission
                                                                             — Even if the Commission had grounds for not
                          ( Case C-l 50/95 )
                                                                                excluding the areas sown by small producers from
                             ( 95/C 208/04 )                                     the calculation of the overshoot of the MGA
                                                                                attributed to Portugal in respect of the cultivation of
                                                                                sunflowers, it was incumbent on the Commission to
 An action against the European Commission was brought                           deduct from the MGA an area of 21 397 hectares,
 before the Court of Justice on 12 May 1995 by the
                                                                                that is to say the area actually farmed by small
 Portuguese Republic, represented by Dr Joao de Mota                             producers exempted from the set-aside requirement,
 Campos and Dr Luis Ines Fernandes, acting as agents, with                       in order to determine such area as might be subject to
 an address for service in Luxembourg at the Portuguese                          set-aside . Thus, the maximum level of the penalty to
 Embassy, 33 Allee Scheffer.
                                                                                which the Portuguese producers could as a whole
                                                                                have been liable is 17% rather than the 20%
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                                    calculated by the Commission.
 (a ) declare null and void Commission Regulation (EC )                      — The applicant expressly alleges that the provisions of
       No 307/95 establishing corrected final regional                            Council Regulations (EEC ) No 1765/92 ( 2 ) and
       reference amounts for producers of soya beans, rape                        (EEC ) No 232/94 ( 3 ) are illegal for breach of the


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of 9 February 1995 in the case of T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v. Bundesanstalt für Landeswirtschaft und Ernährung, third party: Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-68/95)

text:
No C 119/8              | EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13 . 5 . 95
Where a claimant is entitled to a national social security                   or Article 19 of Regulation (EEC ) No 404/93 is
benefit by virtue of falling within the scope of Council                     amplified ?
Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men               (!) OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
and women in matters of social security ( 1 ) does Community
law, in the circumstances of the present case, entitle the
claimant to interest on the award of benefit and, if so:
   (i ) from what date is interest payable ?
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State,
  (ii ) what shall the rate of interest be ?                             Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak, by order of that court of
                                                                         8 March 1995 in the case of BV Aannemersbedrijf P. K.
( iii ) is interest to be calculated only on the balance which           Kraaijeveld and Others against Gedeputeerde Staten van
          falls due after off-setting, in accordance with national                                  Zuid-Holland
          overlapping rules, any other benefit payments made
                                                                                (Case C-72/95 )
          for the same period ?
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/17
H OJ No L 6 , 10 . 1 . 1979 , p . 24 .
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the Raad van
                                                                         State, Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ( State Council,
                                                                         Administrative Appeal Section) of 8 March 1 995 , which
                                                                         was received at the Court Registry on 14 March 1995 , for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of BV Aannemersbedrijf P. K.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessischer                   Kraaijeveld and Others against Gedeputeerde Staten van
Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of 9 February              Zuid Holland ( Zuid-Holland Provincial Executive ), on the
1995 in the case of T. Port GmbH & Co . KG v.
                                                                         following questions:
Bundesanstalt fiir Landeswirtschaft und Ernâhrung, third
                 party: Federal Republic of Germany
                                                                         1 . Must the expression 'canalization and flood-relief
                            ( Case C-68/95 )                                 works ' in Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of
                              ( 95/C 119/16 )                                27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
                                                                             public and private projects on the environment (*) be
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       interpreted as also covering certain types of work on a
European Communities by an order of the Hessischer                           dike running alongside waterways ?
Verwaltungsgerichtshof,              Eighth     Senate     ( Higher
Administrative Court, Hesse ) of 9 February 1995 , which                 2 . Having regard in particular to the expressions 'projects'
was received at the Court Registry on 13 March 1 995 , for a                 and 'modifications to projects' employed in the
preliminary ruling in the case of T. Port GmbH & Co. KG                      Directive, does it make any difference to the answer to
v. Bundesanstalt fiir Landeswirtschaft und Ernâhrung                         question 1 whether what is involved is :
( Federal Office for Agriculture and Food ), third party:
Federal Republic of Germany, on the following                                (a ) the construction of a new dike;
questions :
                                                                             ( b ) the relocation of an existing dike;
1 . Does Article 16 ( 3 ) or Article 30 of Council Regulation
       ( EEC ) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 H put the                       (c ) the reinforcement and/or widening of an existing
                                                                                dike;
       Commission under a duty to deal with cases of hardship
       arising because operators of category A have difficulties
       in continuing trading owing to the fact that, on the basis
                                                                             ( d) the replacement in situ of a dike whether or not the
                                                                                new dike is stronger and/or wider than the old one;
       of the reference years to be taken into account under                       or
       Article 19 (2 ) of that Regulation, they are allocated an
       exceptionally low quota and cannot switch to the                      (e ) a combination of two or more of ( a ) to ( d )?
       market for ACP and Community bananas ?
                                                                         3 . Must Article 2(1 ) and Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Directive be
2 . Is Article 19 (2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 invalid               interpreted as meaning that — if a Member State lays
       in so far as it makes no provision for taking other                   down in its national implementing legislation wrong
       reference years into account in cases of hardship in the              specifications or criteria and/or thresholds within the
       transitional period ?                                                 meaning of Article 4 (2 ) of the Directive for a project
                                                                             listed in Annex II — an obligation exists by virtue of
3 . In the event that one of the above two questions is                      Article 2 ( 1 ) of the Directive to subject the project to an
       answered in the affirmative : on what conditions is the               environmental impact assessment if the project is likely
       national court authorized to take provisional measures                to have 'significant effects on the environment by virtue
       in proceedings for the grant of interim relief until                  inter alia of [its] nature, size or location' within the
       such time as hardship arrangements are introduced                     meaning of Article 2 ( 1 )?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) of 17 May 1995 in Case T-10/94: Achim Kratz v. Commission of the European Communities (Vacancy notice - Level of post to be filled - Fixed by appointing authority after consulting the advisory committee on appointments - Rejection of candidatures)

text:
No C 189/ 14            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 7 . 95
Reference for a preliminary ruling by Juzgado de lo Socal              ( Social Court) No 2, Santiago de Compostela, of 26 May
No 2, Santiago de Compostela, by order of that court of                1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on 12 June
26 May 1995 in the case of Mercedes Lores Guillín v.                   1 995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Mercedes Lores
Instituto Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de la              Guillín against Instituto Nacional de Empleo (National
                           Seguridad Social                            Employment Institute ) and Instituto Nacional de la
                           (Case C-184/95 )                            Seguridad Social (National Social Security Institute ) on
                                                                       questions which are the same as in Case C-88/95 i 1 ).
                              95/C 189/27 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of Juzgado de lo Social               (!) OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995, p. 12.
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         ( Fourth Chamber)                                                      (Fourth Chamber)
                           of 17 May 1995                                                         of 17 May 1995
in Case T- 1 0/94 : Achim Kratz v. Commission of the                   in Case T-16/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the
                   European Communities { l )                                             European Communities ( 1 )
(Vacancy notice — Level of post to be filled — Fixed by                (Vacancy notice — Level ofpost to be filled — Rejection of
       appointing authority after consulting the advisory                                 candidatures — Reasoning)
          committee on appointments — Rejection of                                                 ( 95/C 189/29 )
                             candidatures)
                            ( 95/C 189/28
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       In Case T-16/94 : Dimitrios Benecos, an official of the
In Case T- 1 0/94 : Achim Kratz, an official of the                    Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Commission of the European Communities , residing in                   Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry
Tervuren ( Belgium ), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the            Demaseure and Véronique Leclercq, of the Brussels Bar,
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
the Chambers of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener,                 of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener, against the
against the Commission of the European Communities                     Commission of the European Communities (Agents :
( Agents : Joseph Griesmar and, at the oral proceedings,               Ana-Maria Alves Vieira and Denis Waelbroeck and, at the
Gianluigi Valsesia ) — application for annulment of the                oral proceedings, Gianluigi Valsesia ) — application for the
decision of 3 May 1993 not to accept the applicant's                   annulment of the decision of the Commission rejecting the
candidature for the post of Head of the Unit 'Public Health            applicant's candidature for the post COM/106/92 as
— Europe against Aids ' — the Court of First Instance                  Head of the Unit I/E/4 'Infrastructure (including
( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of              telecommunications ) and energy ( including nuclear safety)'
the Chamber, R. Schintgen and P. Lindh, Judges; B. Pastor,             — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed
for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 May 1995 , the                of K. Lenaerts , President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and
operative part of which is as follows :                                P. Lindh, Judges; B. Pastor, for the Registrar, gave a
                                                                       judgment on 17 May 1995 , the operative part of which is as
1 , the decision of the Commission of 3 May 1 993 rejecting            follows :
      the applicant's candidature for the post of Head of the
      Unit 'Public Health — Europe against Aids ' and the
      related decisions to fix that post at Grade AS!A4 and            1 , the action is dismissed;
      subsequently to appoint Mrs Dellicour to that post are
      annulled;
                                                                       2 , the Commission is ordered to pay the costs.
2 , the Commission is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                       f 1 ) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
( ! ) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .


title: Case T-271/07: Action brought on 19 July 2007 — Eurosemillas v Council and Commission

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/14

         Action brought on 19 July 2007 — Eurosemillas v Council and Commission
   (Case T-271/07)
   (2007/C 223/22)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Eurosemillas, SA (Cordoba, Spain) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               to uphold the present action for damages, in accordance with Article 288 EC, and declare the applicant is entitled to be financially compensated by the Council and the Commission jointly and severally in the sum total of two million six hundred and sixty-one thousand four hundred and twenty-seven euros (EUR 2 661 427);

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and the main arguments are the same as those raised in Case T-217/07 Las Palmeras v Council and Commission.


title: Case C-185/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Tolmezzo by order of that Court of 16 April 2003 in the case of Azienda Agricola Schnabl Rosa against A.G.E.A. and COSPALAT F.V.G.

text:
21.6.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 146/35
—       Reliability of the on-the-spot checks, in particular                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
        adequate measurement of agricultural land. In its third             Tolmezzo by order of that Court of 16 April 2003 in the
        plea in law, Germany rebuts the Commission’s complaint              case of Azienda Agricola Schnabl Rosa against A.G.E.A.
        that Brandenburg did not adequately measure land in the                                   and COSPALAT F.V.G.
        course of on-the-spot checks, which constitutes a breach
        of Article 6(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 ( 3). That                                     (Case C-185/03)
        complaint is based, it submits, on factually and legally
        incorrect premisses.                                                                          (2003/C 146/57)
—       Adequate expansion of the sample coverage of on-the-
        spot checks. In its fourth plea in law, Germany deals with          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        the complaint that Brandenburg did not adequately                   European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Tolmezzo
        expand the required sample coverage of the on-the-spot              (Tolmezzo District Court) of 16 April 2003, received at the
        checks within the holdings visited.                                 Court Registry on 5 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                            case of Azienda Agricola Schnabl Rosa against A.G.E.A. and
                                                                            COSPALAT F.V.G. on the following question:
—       The representative yields for non-food crops on set-aside
        land were assessed at a sufficiently high level. In its fifth       Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1) of 31 March
        plea in law, Germany demonstrates that the Commission’s
                                                                            1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 ( 2) of
        complaint — that the representative yields of renewable             28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the
        raw materials were assessed at too low a level — is                 additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of
        unjustified.
                                                                            an administrative penalty with the result that producers are
                                                                            liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been
—       Lack of precision concerning the financial years to which           exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?
        expenditure is imputed. In its sixth plea in law, the level
        of expenditure imputed by the decision is contested. The            (1 ) OJ L 90 of 1.4.1984, p. 10.
        Commission’s decision is in part imprecise and is invalid           (2 ) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
        in so far as its operative part and the statements in the
        Annex concerning an amount of EUR 12 927 107 are
        inconsiystent. In the 1999 and 2000 financial years, the
        Land of Brandenburg incurred expenditure for crop years
        1999 and 2000 of EUR 270 387 968. Applying the flat
        rate of 5 % imposed by the Commission, which is                             Removal from the register of Case C-302/01 ( 1)
        being contested, that results in an imputed amount of
        EUR 13 519 398. However, an amount of
                                                                                (2003/C 146/58)
        EUR 262 446 505 was imputed. Consequently an
        amount of EUR 12 927 107 was wrongly imputed.
                                                                            By order of 6 February 2003 the President of the Court of
—       Incorrect risk assessment. Finally, in its seventh plea in          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
        law, it is argued that the declared flat-rate imputation of         from the register of Case C-302/01: Commission of the
        risk of 5 % is defective simply because no systematic               European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
        administrative or checking errors were the subject of
        complaint in Brandenburg in the relevant period. More-
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 259 of 15.9.2001.
        over, the calculation of the alleged loss to the EAGGF was
        made using inappropriate methods and arrived at in
        breach of Article 10 EC.
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the                     Removal from the register of Case C-86/02 (1)
     financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160,
     p. 103).                                                                                (2003/C 146/59)
( 2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying
     down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation
     (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the
     accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ 1995 L 158, p. 6).         By order of 7 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
( 3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December                  of the European Communities ordered the removal from
     1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated            the register of Case C-86/02: Commission of the European
     administration and control system for certain Community aid            Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
     schemes (OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36).
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.