title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of 23 April 1996 in the case of Jyri Lehtonen and ASBL Castors Canada Dry Namur-Braine v. ASBL Fédération royale belge des sociétés de basket-ball (Case C-176/96)

text:
6 . 7. 96          LEN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 197/ 15
Jersey of 11 April 1996 , which was received at the Court              2 . If there has been a supply of goods or services effected
Registry on 20 May 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the                   for   consideration,      what    is  the    nature    of the
case of Rui Alberto Pereira Roque against His Excellency the               consideration in relation to such transaction ?
Lieutenant Governor of Jersey, on the following
questions:                                                             P ) OJ No L 145, 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ; EE 09 FI , p . 54 .
1 . On the premise that British citizens are not liable to
     immigration control in, or to be deported from, Jersey,
     does Article 4 of the third Protocol to the Act of
     Accession of the United Kingdom to the European
     Communities ( l ) have the effect that nationals of
     another Member State are equally not liable to be                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sala de lo Social of
     deported from Jersey ?                                            the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla la Mancha by
                                                                       order of that court of 25 April 1996 in the case of Francisca
2 . If the answer to the first question is 'No', does the said         Sanchez Hidalgo and Others against Asociacion de Servicios
     Article 4 prohibit the competent authorities in Jersey                      Aser and Sociedad Cooperativa Minerva
     from deporting a national of another Member State save                                    ( Case C-1 73/96 )
     where such deportation is justified on grounds of public                                    ( 96/C 197/31 )
     policy, public security or public health ?
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
3 . If the answer to the second question is 'Yes', does the            European Communities by an order of the Sala de lo Social
     said Article 4 prohibit the competent authorities of              del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla la Mancha
     Jersey from deporting a national of another Member                ( Social Chamber of the High Court of Justice, Castilla la
     State from Jersey where the considerations of public              Mancha ), received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1996 ,
     policy applied by those authorities would not in practice         for a preliminary ruling in the case of Francisca Sanchez
     lead to the deportation of that person from the United            Hidalgo and Others against Asociacion de Servicios Aser
     Kingdom ?                                                         and Sociedad Cooperativa Minerva Ayuntamiento, on the
                                                                       following question:
0 ) OJ, English Special Edition, 27. 3 . 1972, p. 164.
                                                                       Must there be regarded as falling within the scope of
                                                                       Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 ( ! ) the case of an
                                                                       undertaking which ceases to provide, for a municipality
                                                                       which had awarded it a contract for that purpose, the service
                                                                       of home help for certain persons in need, whereupon a new
                                                                       contract for that service is awarded to a different
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                undertaking, without there being any transfer of material
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of             assets and without there being, either in the collective
 13 May 1996, in the case of the Commissioners of Customs              agreement or in the tendering conditions, any provision
   and Excise against the First National Bank of Chicago               pursuant to which the new undertaking must be subrogated
                        Case C- 1 72/96 )
                                                                       to the employment relationship between the workers and
                                                                       the previous undertaking to which the contract had been
                          96/C 197/30                                  awarded ?
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                (M OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 ; EE 05 F2 , p . 122 .
 European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 13 May 1996 , which
 was received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1996 , for a
 preliminary ruling in the case of the Commissioners of
 Customs and Excise against the First National Bank of
 Chicago, on the following questions :
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
                                                                        Première Instance de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of
 On the proper interpretation of Council Directive                      23 April 1996 in the case ofJyri Lehtonen and ASBL Castors
 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the                  Canada Dry Namur-Braine v. ASBL Fédération royale belge
 laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                                   des sociétés de basket-ball
 common system of value-added tax: uniform basis of                                             (Case C-1 76/96 )
 assessment ^), and in relation to transactions of foreign
 exchange as defined by the British Bankers' Association ( as                                     ( 96/C 197/32 )
 set out in paragraph 1 of the findings of fact):
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 1 . Do such foreign exchange transactions constitute                   European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
      the supply of goods or services effected for                      Première Instance de Bruxelles ( Court of First Instance,
      consideration ?                                                   Brussels ) of 23 April 1996 , which was received at the Court
 ---pagebreak--- No C 197/ 16            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          6 . 7. 96
Registry on 22 May 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the                Action brought on 24 May 1996 by the United Kingdom
case of Jyri Lehtonen and ASBL Castors Canada Dry                          against the Commission of the European Communities
Namur-Braine v. ASBL Fédération royale belge des sociétés                                            ( Case C-1 80/96 )
de basket-ball on the following question :
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/34 )
Are the rules of a sports federation which prohibit a club
from playing a player in the competition for the first time if          An action against the Commission of the European
he has been engaged after a specified date contrary to the              Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
Treaty of Rome ( in particular Articles 6 , 48 , 85 and 86 ) in         European Communities on 24 May 1996 by the United
the case of a professional player who is a national of a                Kingdom, represented by Lindsey Nicoll, of the Treasury
Member State of the European Union, notwithstanding the                 Solicitor's Department, acting as Agent, assisted by K. P. E.
sporting reasons put forward by the federations to justify              Lasok, QC, and David Anderson, Barrister, with an address
those rules, namely the need to prevent distortion of the               for service in Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14
competitions ?                                                          boulevard Roosevelt.
                                                                        The applicant respectfully submits that:
                                                                        ( a ) Commission Decision 96/239/EEC ( 1 ) should be
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministr^tivo Regionale per la Lombardia by order of                          annulled ; alternatively;
that court of 7 November 1995 in the case of Stefano Serbini
                 v. Ministry of Foreign Trade                           ( b ) Article 1 of Commission Decision 96/239 should be
                                                                               annulled insofar as it applies to :
                         ( Case C- 1 78/96 )
                           ( 96/C 197/33 )                                         ( i ) live bovine animals permitted to be exported from
                                                                                the United Kingdom by Decision 94/474/EEC (2 );
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                   and/or
European Communities by order of the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia ( Lombardy                             ( ii ) the semen and/or embryos of live bovine animals;
Regional Administrative Court ) of 7 November 1 995 ,                                    and/or
received at the Court Registry on 22 May 1996 , for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Stefano Serbini v . Ministry                 ( iii ) meat of bovine animals less than 30 months old
of Foreign Trade on the following questions :                                            slaughtered in the United Kingdom or meat from
                                                                                bovine animals certified to come from herds that
1 . Is the purchase of unrefined gold for investment
     purposes covered by the concept of 'capital movements'                              have not experienced any case of BSE and have
     in Article 67 ( 1 ) of the Treaty which was in force until                          not been exposed to any actual or potential source
     31 December 1993 ?                                                                  of feed contaminated with the BSE agent;
                                                                                and/or
2. If an affirmative answer is given to the preceding
     question, were the provisions of Directive                                ( iv ) products obtained from bovine animals
     88/361/EEC ( 1 ) applicable to the purchase of unrefined                            slaughtered in the United Kingdom which are
     gold for investment purposes as at 31 July 1993 and did                             liable to enter the animal feed or human food
     those provisions have direct effect so as to render                                 chains and materials destined for use in medicinal
     inapplicable national provisions of the kind contained in                           products, cosmetics or pharmaceutical products;
     Article 15 of Presidential Decree No 148 of 31 March                                and/or
     1988 ?
                                                                                (v ) gelatin and/or tallow; and/or
 3 . If an affirmative answer is given to the preceding
     question, are the provisions of Directive 88/361 /EEC
                                                                                ( vi ) exports to third countries ( save to the extent that
     still applicable following the entry into force of
                                                                                there is a real risk of deflection of trade, where
     Article 73a of the EC Treaty ( added by Article G ( 15 ) of
                                                                                appropriate );
     the Treaty on European Union), according to which 'as
     from 1 January 1994, Articles 67 to 73 shall be replaced
     by Articles 73b, 73c, 73d, 73e, 73f and 73g', or is the             (c ) each of the contested acts should be annulled;
     liberalization of capital movements henceforth
     governed entirely by Articles 73b to 73g ?                          and
 4 . If the answer to the first part of the preceding question is        ( d ) the Commission should be ordered to pay the costs of
      in the negative, is Article 73b ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty now                the United Kingdom .
      applicable to the purchase of unrefined gold for
      investment purposes, and does it have direct effect ?
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments:
 (M OJ No L 178 , 8 . 7. 1988 , p . 5 .
                                                                         In brief, the contested Decision and the contested acts are
                                                                         unlawful for the following reasons:


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien, by judgment of that court of 21 October 1996, in the case of Verein für Konsumenteninformation against Österreichische Kreditversicherung AG (Case C-364/96)

text:
No C 9/ 12            1 EN |                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11 . 1 . 97
17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of                        gas sector by legislation and has to that end
capital (*), with reference to the period during which the                      submitted, pursuant to Article 189b (2 ) of the EC
Italian State had not correctly transposed the provisions of                    Treaty, a proposal to the Council of the European
the Directive into its domestic legal system (a period                          Union, which is working on the adoption of a
which did not end until the entry into force of Decree Law                      common position, for a European Council and
No 331 of 30 August 1993 , converted into Law No 427                            Parliament Directive concerning common rules for
of 29 October 1993 )?                                                           the internal market in natural gas ( ! ) mean that the
                                                                                competent authorities of a Member State pursuant to
H OJ No L 249 , 3 . 10 . 1969 , p . 25 .                                        Article 9 ( 3 ) of Council Regulation No 17 of
                                                                                6 February 1962 (2 ) are precluded on the basis of the
                                                                                second paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty, under
                                                                                which the Member States are to abstain from any
                                                                                measure which could prejudice the attainment of the
                                                                                objectives of the Treaty, from applying Article 85 ( 1 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht                      of the Treaty by administrative order to an agreement
fur Handelssachen Wien, by judgment of that court                               under which two domestic long-distance gas
of      21   October         1996,     in   the  case     of    Verein          undertakings mutually undertake to refrain from
fur      Konsumenteninformation against              Osterreichische            publicly supplying mains gas, whether directly or
                      Kreditversicherung AG                                     indirectly, in the supply area of the other contracting
                            ( Case C-364/96 )                                   party (a market-sharing agreement)?
                               ( 97/C 9/22
                                                                            2 . If Question 1 is answered in the negative :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          do the competent authorities of a Member State
European Communities by order of the Bezirksgericht fur                         within the meaning of Article 9 ( 3 ) of Regulation
Handelssachen Wien ( District Commercial Court, Vienna )                        No 17, by applying Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty to
of 21 October 1996 , received at the Court Registry on                          a market-sharing agreement between two domestic
14 November 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the                               long-distance gas undertakings, when, in other
case of Verein fur Konsumenteninformation v. Oster                             Member States, such undertakings have sales areas
reichische Kreditversicherung AG on the                     following           protected by contract or de facto from competition or
question:                                                                       there are statutory monopolies over long-distance gas
                                                                                supply, infringe the obligation on the Member States
Is Article 7 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June                         which follows from the second paragraph of Article 5
1990 on package travel, package holidays and package                            in conjunction with Article 3 (g) of the EC Treaty to
tours 0 ) to be interpreted as meaning that the payment of                      abstain from any measure which may jeopardize the
sums by a consumer to the provider of services ( e.g. a                         Community objective of establishing a system
hotel-keeper ) at the resort because the latter person                          ensuring that competition in the internal market is
prevented him from returning home unless payment was                            not distorted ?
made is included within the protective scope of that
provision as ' security for the repatriation of the                         3 . If Question 2 is answered in the negative :
consumer '?
                                                                                is there a measure (a selling arrangement) compatible
f 1 ) OJ No L 158 , 23 . 6 . 1990, p . 59 .                                     with the free movement of goods between Member
                                                                                States for the purposes of Article 30 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                                as interpreted by the Court of Justice in Joined Cases
                                                                                C-267/91 and 268/91 Keck and Mithouard [ 1993]
                                                                                ECR 1-6097, where the national legal order ( in
                                                                                Germany paragraph 103 of the Gesetz gegen Wettbe
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kammergericht,
                                                                                werbsbeschrankungen ( Law Against Restrictions on
Berlin, by order of that court of 30 October 1996 in the
                                                                                Competition )) exempts, on notification, market
case of Ruhrgas AG and Thyssengas GmbH against the
                          Bundeskartellamt                                      sharing agreements between long-distance gas
                                                                                undertakings — which avail themselves of this
                            ( Case C-365/96 )                                   possibility — from the prohibition on restrictive
                                ( 97/C 9/23 )                                   practices under national law and, if so, does it follow
                                                                                therefrom that the competent authorities of a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          Member State pursuant to Article 9 ( 3 ) of Regulation
European Communities by order of the Kammergericht,                             No 17 may not apply the prohibition within the
 Berlin — Kartellsenat ( Cartel Chamber of the Berlin Court                     meaning of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty to such
 of Appeal ) of 30 October 1996, received at the Court                          exempted market-sharing agreements ?
 Registry on 19 November 1996, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of 1 . Ruhrgas AG and 2 . Thyssengas GmbH                       4 . If Question 3 is answered in the negative:
 against the Bundeskartellamt ( Federal Cartel Office ) on
                                                                                is Article 9 ( 3 ) of Regulation No 17, under which the
the following questions :
                                                                                authorities of the Member States remain competent
    1 . Does the fact that the European Commission is                           to apply Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty as long as
        seeking to complete the internal market in the natural                  the Commission has not initiated any procedure,


title: Case T-648/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica v Parliament

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/62

         Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica v Parliament
   (Case T-648/15)
   (2016/C 048/70)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision A(2015)8361 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

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

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


title: Corrigendum to the Order of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — BR IP Holder v OHIM — Greyleg Investments (HOKEY POKEY) (Case T-62/14) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark HOKEY POKEY — Unregistered earlier national word mark — Proof of use — Right to prohibit use of the mark sought — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right of a Member State — Obligation to state reasons — Raised by the Court of its own motion) (OJ C 90, 7.3.2016, p. 15)

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/46

         Corrigendum to the Order of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — BR IP Holder v OHIM — Greyleg Investments (HOKEY POKEY)
   (Case T-62/14)

      (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark HOKEY POKEY — Unregistered earlier national word mark — Proof of use — Right to prohibit use of the mark sought — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right of a Member State — Obligation to state reasons — Raised by the Court of its own motion)

   (
         Official Journal of the European Union C 90 of 7.3.2016, p. 15
      )
   (2016/C 111/58)
   The OJ Communication in Case T-62/14, BR IP Holder v OHIM — Greyleg Investments (HOKEY POKEY) should read as follows:

         ‘Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — BR IP Holder v OHIM — Greyleg Investments (HOKEY POKEY)
         (Case T-62/14) (1)

         ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark HOKEY POKEY - Unregistered earlier national word mark - Proof of use - Right to prohibit use of the mark sought - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right of a Member State - Obligation to state reasons - Raised by the Court of its own motion))
         (2016/C 090/20)
         Language of the case: English

            Parties

            Applicant: BR IP Holder LLC (Canton, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: F. Traub, lawyer and C. Rohsler, Solicitor)

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

            Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Greyleg Investments Ltd (Baltonsborough, United Kingdom)

            Re:

         Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 November 2013 (Case R 1091/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between BR IP Holder LLC and Greyleg Investments Ltd.

            Operative part of the judgment

         The Court:

                     1.

                     Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 November 2013 (Case R 1091/2012-4);

                     2.

                     Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by BR IP Holder LLC.’

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Joined Cases T-159/13 and T-372/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — HK Intertrade v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with a view to preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Actions for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Point from which time starts to run — Admissibility — Right to be heard — Obligation to notify — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of defence — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — HK Intertrade v Council
   (Joined Cases T-159/13 and T-372/14) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with a view to preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Actions for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Point from which time starts to run - Admissibility - Right to be heard - Obligation to notify - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of defence - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2016/C 027/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: HK Intertrade Co. Ltd (Wanchai, Hong Kong, China) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, N. Pilkington and D. Sellers, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, in Case T 159/13, for annulment of Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55), and, in Case T 372/14, for annulment of the Council decision contained in the letter of 14 March 2014 concerning the maintenance of the restrictive measures adopted in respect of the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders HK Intertrade Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2002 in Case T-127/00: Michael Nevin v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Work done for an international organisation)

text:
23.11.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 289/23
the European Communities (Agents: C. Bury and R. Vidal):                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of
28 February 2000 concerning the applicants’ request for the
opening of an investigation with a view to withdrawal of the                                          of 18 September 2002
benefit of the general tariff preference system in respect of
polyethylene terephthalate film originating in India, the Court               in Case T-29/01: Carlos Puente Martín v Commission of
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke,                                      the European Communities (1)
President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 September 2002, in
which it:                                                                     (Officials — Reinstatement — Installation allowance —
                                                                              Further payment of invalidity pension — Resettlement
                                                                                allowance — Conditions)
1.     Annuls the Commission’s decision of 28 February 2000;
2.     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those                                       (2002/C 289/45)
       of the applicants.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                              In Case T-29/01: Carlos Puente Martín, an official of the
                                                                              Commission of the European Communities, residing in Madrid,
                                                                              represented by O. González Correas, lawyer, against Com-
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  mission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall,
                                                                              J. Rivas-Andrés and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert) — application for
                                                                              annulment of the Commission’s decision of 22 February 2000
                       of 11 September 2002                                   refusing to grant to the applicant the full installation allowance
                                                                              and resettlement allowance following his installation in Brus-
in Case T-127/00: Michael Nevin v Commission of the                           sels and resettlement in Madrid -the Court of First Instance
                     European Communities ( 1)                                (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili
                                                                              and P. Mengozzi, Judges; Registrar: J. Palacio González,
(Officials — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of                      Administrator, gave a judgment on 18 September 2002, in
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Work done for an                         which it:
                     international organisation)
                                                                              1.     Held that there was no need to adjudicate on the claim that the
                            (2002/C 289/44)                                          Court of First Instance should accept Spanish as the language
                                                                                of the case;
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                              2.     Annulled the Commission’s decision of 22 February 2000 to
                                                                                the extent that it refused to grant the applicant the full
In Case T-127/00: Michael Nevin, an official of the Com-                             installation allowance provided for in Article 5(1) of Annex VII
mission of the European Communities, residing in Tervuren                            to the Staff Regulations and the full resettlement allowance
(Belgium), represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for                     provided for in Article 6(1) of Annex VII to the Staff
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European                            Regulations;
Communities (Agents: J. Currall, D. Waelbroeck and A. Vro-
ninks) — application for annulment of the Commission’s                        3.     Ordered the Commission to pay the applicant the allowances,
decision of 9 April 1999 refusing to grant the applicant the                         plus default interest from the respective dates on which it became
expatriation allowance provided for by Article 4 of Annex VII                        due on those allowances in accordance with Annex VII to the
to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communi-                       Staff Regulations to the date of payment, after deduction of the
ties and, secondly a claim for payment of that allowance                             sums already paid to the applicant as installation allowance;
together with default interest - the Court of First Instance                         the annual rate of that default interest is to be calculated on the
(Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili                        basis of the rate fixed by the Governing Council of the European
and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the                         Central Bank for principal refinancing operations and applicable
Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 September 2002, in which                            during the period in question, plus two points;
it:
                                                                              4.     Dismissed the remainder of the application;
1.     dismisses the application.
                                                                              5.     Ordered the Commission to pay the costs.
2.     orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 118 of 21 April 2001.
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.


title: Case C-87/03: Action brought on 27 February 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Council of the European Union

text:
7.6.2003                   EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 135/7
obligations under that directive, the Court (First Chamber),                    — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmer-
composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the                         mans, President of Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr
Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate                      (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April                  Registrar, made an order on 6 February 2003, the operative
2003, in which it:                                                              part of which is as follows:
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,         1.    The appeal is dismissed.
      all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary
      to comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament               2.    Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.
      and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing
      of biocidal products on the market, the French Republic has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;                    (1 ) OJ C 44, 16.2.2002.
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
                                                                                Action brought on 27 February 2003 by the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case C-87/03)
                      ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (2003/C 135/11)
                            (Fourth Chamber)
                           of 6 February 2003                                   An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                                brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties on 27 February 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented
in Case C-492/01 P: Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH v                                   by Nuria Díaz Abad, Abogado del Estado, with an address for
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)                             service in Luxembourg.
(Commission Decision 1999/244/EC of 26 March 1999                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
amending Decision 97/296/EC drawing up the list of third
countries from which the import of fishery products is
authorised for human consumption — Prohibition on the                           —     annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 (1) of
importation of caviar from Kazakhstan — Non-contractual                               20 December 2002 fixing for 2003 the fishing oppor-
liability of the Community — Appeal partly manifestly                                 tunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks
                inadmissible and partly unfounded)                                    and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community
                                                                                waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch
                                                                                limitations are required, in so far as it allocates certain
                             (2003/C 135/10)                                          quotas to the Spanish fleet in the Community waters of
                                                                                the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, and
                     (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                —     order the Council to pay the costs.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                —     Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination: on
In Case 492/01 P: Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH, established in                             completion of the transitional period on 31 December
Hamburg (Germany), represented by H.-J. Rabe, lawyer —                                2002, the situation of Spanish fishermen is the same as
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                         that of fishermen of the remaining Member States and
the European Communities, Fifth Chamber, of 23 October                                they should enjoy equal access to waters and resources.
2001 in Case T-155/99 Dieckmann & Hansen v Commission                                 However, by the contested regulation, Spanish fishermen
[2001] ECR II-3143, seeking to have that judgment set aside,                          are treated differently, since they are not allowed to fish
the other party to the proceedings being Commission of the                            in the waters of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea for
European Communities (Agents: G. Berscheid and M. Niejhar)                            virtually all the species subject to quotas.
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/8                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          7.6.2003
      Nor is there is any objective justification for that discrimi-        Action brought on 28 February 2003 by the Kingdom of
      nation. The general rule is the full applicability of all the               Spain against the Council of the European Union
      Community stock to new Member States from the very
      moment of accession and the derogations from that full
      applicability contained in an Act of Accession are always
      of a temporary nature and must be interpreted strictly.                                        (Case C-90/03)
      To extend those derogations beyond the transitional
      period provided for in the Act of Accession is to disregard
      the very essence of those derogations, namely their
      transitional and limited exceptional nature, and their                                        (2003/C 135/12)
      purpose, which is solely to permit the gradual integration
      of a new Member State into the Community.
—     Infringement of the Act of Accession of Spain: the non-
      allocation to Spain in the contested regulation of part of            An action against the Council of the European Union was
      the quotas in the Community waters of the North Sea                   brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
      and the Baltic Sea which have been allocated since Spain’s            ties on 28 February 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented
      accession has the effect of extending the transitional                by N. Díaz Abad, Abogado del Estado, with an address for
      period beyond that provided for in the Act and of thus                service in Luxembourg.
      infringing its provisions.
      It cannot be overlooked that had it not been for the
      transitional period in Article 166 of the Act of Accession,           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      Spain would have participated in the allocation of new
      quotas since 1986, on the basis of three factors:
                                                                            1.    annul Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation 2792/1999 ( 1) laying
                                                                                down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding
      —     its historical catches during the years 1973/1978,                    Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector,
            i.e. the period taken into consideration when the                     as amended by Council Regulation 2369/2002 of
            principle of relative stability was first established;                20 December 2002 (2);
                                                                            2.    order the Council to pay the costs.
      —     its catches of the same species in adjoining zones;
            and
      —     the need to rely on by-catches.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Infringement of Article 20(2) of Council Regulation
      (EC) No 2371/2002 (2) of 20 December 2002 on the                      —     Breach of essential procedural requirements: Spain con-
      conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries                      tends that the text of Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation 2792/
      resources under the Common Fisheries Policy: upon                           1999, as amended by Regulation 2369/2002, published
      expiry of the transitional period, the new fishing oppor-                   in Official Journal L 358 of 31 December 2002, is not
      tunities allocated in the waters in question between                        the text approved by the Council. In the present case, the
      1992 and 1998 must be allocated taking into account                         text approved by the Council was that contained in the
      the interests of each Member State and therefore Spain’s                    final compromise document, i.e. the one bearing the
      too.                                                                        number SN 113/02, which tacitly amended the document
                                                                                containing the second compromise, SN 105/02, by
                                                                                providing the possibility of applying a basic weighting of
                                                                                1:1.35 to vessels of more than 100 GT, which implies
                                                                                that that weighting would also apply to vessels of more
( 1) OJ L 356, 31.12.2002, p. 12.                                                 than 400 GT and, therefore, the possibility of granting
( 2) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.                                                 aid for renewal this vessels of that type.
                                                                            —     Infringement of Article 254 EC: publication must be
                                                                                limited to reproducing the text of the measure, as adopted
                                                                                by the Organ with legislative or regulatory power. What


title: Case C-394/01: Action brought on 8 October 2001 by the French Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.12.2001            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 369/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-              Action brought on 8 October 2001 by the French Repub-
richtshof, by order of that court of 20 September 2001,               lic against the Commission of the European Communities
in the case of (1) Dr Harald Weigel and (2) Ingrid Weigel
     against the Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg
                                                                                (Case C-394/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 369/12)
                         (Case C-387/01)
                         (2001/C 369/11)                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                      ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                      Communities on 8 October 2001 by the French Republic
                                                                      represented by G. de Bergues and F. Million, acting as Agents,
                                                                      with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-             The French Republic claims that the Court should:
hof (Federal Administrative Court) of 20 September 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 8 October 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of (1) Dr Harald Weigel and (2)        —     annul the Commission’s decision of 25 July 2001, taken
Ingrid Weigel against the Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg,             on the basis of Articles 87 and 88 EC relating to State aid
on the following questions:                                                 granted by France in the form of development assistance
                                                                            for the liner ‘Le Levant’ built by Alstom Leroux Naval and
                                                                            intended for operation in Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon; and
1.   Is Article 39 EC (freedom of movement for workers) or
     Article 12 EC (discrimination on the ground of national-         —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
     ity) to be construed as meaning that those provisions are
     infringed where Normverbrauchsabgabe (basic duty plus
     surcharge) is charged on a vehicle brought into the
     Republic of Austria from another part of the Community
     in connection with a transfer of residence necessitated by       Pleas in law and main arguments
     a change of job?
                                                                      Errors of fact and of law and manifest errors of assessment
2.   Do Article 90 EC (prohibition of higher taxation on              relating to the ‘development’ component of the aid at issue;
     goods from other Member States) or Article 23 EC
     (Customs Union) and Article 25 EC (prohibition of
     customs duties or charges having equivalent effect as
     between Member States) preclude the imposition of                The Commission is wrong to take the view that the objectives
     the Normverbrauchsabgabe (basic duty and surcharge               regarding job creation have not been achieved. Seventeen crew
     respectively) mentioned in the first preliminary question?       members were recruited in the West Indies and twelve in Saint-
                                                                      Pierre-et-Miquelon. The permanent staff attached to the ship
                                                                      thus tallies with the estimates (55 posts) and eleven posts were
3.   Is imposition of the surcharge determined as part of the         created with the shipowners instead of the five projected.
     Normverbrauchsabgabe referred to in the first prelimi-
     nary question compatible with Sixth Council Directive
     (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 (1) on the harmonization             Lastly, the French Government challenges the Commission’s
     of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover            assessment which finds that the economic consequences of the
     taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform                  aid for Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon are inadequate. First, it submits
     basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive             that the Commission could not evaluate the economic conse-
     91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 (2) supplementing the             quences arising from the aid over the period 2001-2003 by
     common system of value added tax with a view to the              reference to a calculation involving the extrapolation of figures
     abolition of fiscal frontiers?                                   recorded for the years 1999 and 2000 without committing an
                                                                      error of law. Second, the Commission’s evaluation is based on
                                                                      errors of fact. In any event, even if the economic consequences
                                                                      for Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon do not exceed the amount of the
(1) OJ 1997 L 145, p. 1.                                              aid, it is nevertheless appropriate to evaluate them in the
(2) OJ 1991 L 376, p. 1.                                              context of the archipelago, that is to say, by reference, in
                                                                      particular, to its size and economic potential.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 1998 in Case C-153/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo): Aristóteles Grajera Rodríguez v. Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) (Social security - Old-age pensions - Calculation of benefits - Heading D, paragraph 4, of Annex VI to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

text:
20.2.1999            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 48/5
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       of the assessment of risks is not contrary to that
                    of 17 December 1998                                   directive where it constitutes a more stringent measure
                                                                          for the protection of working conditions authorised by
in Case C-2/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   Article 118(a)(3) of the EC Treaty and Directive
the Tribunale di Genova): SocietaÁ Italiana Petroli SpA (IP)              90/394/EEC.
                       v. Borsana Srl (1)
(Social policy Ð Protection of safety and health of                  2. Article 4 of Council Directive 89/655/EEC of
workers Ð Use of work equipment Ð Risks related to                        30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety
exposure to carcinogens Ð Directives 89/655/EEC and                       and health requirements for the use of work
                         90/394/EEC)                                      equipment by workers at work (Second individual
                        (1999/C 48/09)                                    Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of
                                                                          Directive 89/391/EEC) does not preclude a Member
                                                                          State from setting a time-limit for adapting existing
               (Language of the case: Italian)                            working equipment that expires before 31 December
                                                                          1996, provided that the time-limit is not so short that
                                                                          it does not enable employers to effect such adaptation
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be             or entail a cost that is clearly excessive as compared
         published in the European Court Reports)                         with what they would have had to meet if the
                                                                          time-limit had been longer.
In Case C-2/97: reference to the Court under Article 177             (1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale di Genova for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between SocietaÁ Italiana Petroli SpA (IP) and
Borsana Srl Ð on the interpretation of Article 4 of
Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989
concerning the minimum safety and health requirements
for the use of work equipment by workers at work                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Second individual Directive within the meaning of
Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ L 393,                                            (Fifth Chamber)
30.12.1989, p. 13) and Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Council
                                                                                of 17 December 1998
Directive 90/394/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the protection
of workers from the risks related to exposure to                     in Case C-153/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
carcinogens at work (Sixth individual Directive within the           the Tribunal Supremo): Aristóteles Grajera Rodríguez v.
meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ                Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), and
L 196, 26.7.1990, p. 1) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.                   Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) (1)
Rodríguez, President, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G.
Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, G. F.                    (Social security Ð Old-age pensions Ð Calculation of
Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), D. A. O.            benefits Ð Heading D, paragraph 4, of Annex VI to
Edward, H. Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen and K. M.                                         Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)
Ioannou, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate-General; L.                                              (1999/C 48/10)
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 17 December 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
1. Article 4 of Council Directive 90/394/EEC of 28 June
    1990 on the protection of workers from the risks
    related to exposure to carcinogens at work (Sixth                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
    individual Directive within the meaning of                                 published in the European Court Reports)
    Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) must be
    interpreted to the effect that the employer's obligation
    to reduce or replace a carcinogen is not contingent on           In Case C-153/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
    the outcome of the assessment of risks referred to in            of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme
    Article 3 of that directive.                                     Court) (Spain) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                     pending before that court between Aristóteles Grajera
                                                                     Rodríguez and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social
    Article 5 of Directive 90/394/EEC must be interpreted            (INSS), and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social
    to the effect that the employer's obligation to avoid or         (TGSS) Ð on the validity of heading D, paragraph 4, of
    reduce exposure to a carcinogen is contingent on the             Annex VI to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
    outcome of the assessment of risks referred to in                14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
    Article 3 of that directive.                                     to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
                                                                     members of their families moving within the Community,
                                                                     as amended and updated by Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83
    A national provision which requires the employer to              (OJ L 230, 22.8.1984, p. 6), as adapted by part VIII of
    reduce workers' exposure to a carcinogen irrespective            Annex I to the Act concerning the conditions of accession
 ---pagebreak--- C 48/6               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.2.1999
of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and              English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412) Ð the Court
the adjustments to the Treaties (OJ L 302, 15.11.1985,               (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President
p. 23) and as subsequently amended by Council                        of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm
Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 (OJ L 136, 19.5.1992, p. 7),             (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; S.
and on the interpretation of that regulation Ð the Court             Alber, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet                       Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de            17 December 1998, in which it has ruled:
Almeida, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward and M. Wathelet,
Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on            Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 69/335/EEC of the Council of
17 December 1998, in which it has ruled:                             17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
                                                                     capital must be interpreted as allowing a tax to be
                                                                     charged in the event of a transfer of shares irrespective,
Consideration of the questions referred for a preliminary            first, of whether the company issuing the shares is listed
ruling has revealed nothing of such a kind as to affect the          on a Stock Exchange and, secondly, of whether the shares
validity of heading D, paragraph 4, of Annex VI to                   are transferred on the Stock Exchange or directly from the
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971                  transferor to the transferee.
on the application of social security schemes to employed
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
                                                                     (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
families moving within the Community, as amended and
updated by Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83, as adapted by
part VIII of Annex I to the Act concerning the conditions
of accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties and as
subsequently amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1248/92.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.                                                                    (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 17 December 1998
                                                                     in Case C-244/97 (request for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Hof van Cassatie): Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen v.
                                                                                Gerdina Lustig (1)
                                                                     (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 Ð Old-age benefits Ð
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  Articles 45 and 49 Ð Calculation of benefits where the
                       (Sixth Chamber)                               person concerned does not simultaneously fulfil the
                                                                     conditions laid down by all the legislations under which
                    of 17 December 1998                                    periods of insurance or residence were completed)
in Case C-236/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                    (1999/C 48/12)
the éstre Landsret): Skatteministeriet v. Aktieselskabet
                Forsikringsselskabet Codan (1)
(Directive 69/335/EEC Ð Indirect taxes on the raising of                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
capital Ð Tax on transfer of shares not listed on a Stock
                          Exchange)
                        (1999/C 48/11)                                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
               (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                     In Case C-244/97: Reference to the Court under
                                                                     Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Hof van Cassatie
                                                                     (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       pending before that court between Rijksdienst voor
         published in the European Court Reports)                    Pensioenen v. Gerdina Lustig Ð on the interpretation of
                                                                     Articles 45 and 49 of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                     No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
In Case C-236/97: reference to the Court under Article 177           security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
of the EC Treaty from the éstre Landsret (Eastern                    persons and to members of their families moving within
Regional Court) (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in the            the Community, in the version amended and updated by
proceedings pending before that court between                        Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 (OJ L 230, 22.8.1984, p. 6),
Skatteministeriet and Aktieselskabet Forsikringsselskabet            as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 (OJ L 136,
Codan Ð on the interpretation of Article 12(1)(a) of                 19.5.1992, p. 7) and Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 (OJ
Directive 69/335/EEC of the Council of 17 July 1969                  L 335, 30.12.1995, p. 10) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ,             composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 July 2000 in Case C-73/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Münster): Viktor Movrin v Landesversicherungsanstalt Westfalen (Social security — EC Treaty — Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Recipient of retirement pensions — Compulsory sickness insurance scheme in Member State of residence — Contribution — Grant under the legislation of another Member State)

text:
C 302/12                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           21.10.2000
      employment, vocational training and promotion, and working             Siegen (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
      conditions and Article 141(4) EC preclude national legislation         pending before that court between Margrit Dietrich and
      under which a candidate for a public post who belongs to the           Westdeutscher Rundfunk — on the interpretation of
      under-represented sex and possesses sufficient qualifications for      Article 2(a) and 1(3)(a) of Council Directive 90/270/EEC of
      that post must be chosen in preference to a candidate of the           29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health requirements
      opposite sex who would otherwise have been appointed, where            for work with display screen equipment (fifth individual
      this is necessary to secure the appointment of a candidate of the      Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive
      under-represented sex and the difference between the respective        89/391/EEC) (OJ 1990 L 156, p. 14) — the Court (Sixth
      merits of the candidates is not so great as to give rise to a          Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rappor-
      breach of the requirement of objectivity in making appointments.       teur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann,
                                                                             J.-P. Puissochet and V. Skouris, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate
2.    Article 2(1) and (4) of Directive 76/207 and Article 141(4)            General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 July
      EC also preclude national legislation of that kind where it            2000, in which it has ruled:
      applies only to procedures for filling a predetermined number of
      posts or to posts created as part of a specific programme of a         1.     The term ‘graphic display screen’, for the purposes of Article 2(a)
      particular higher educational institution allowing the appli-                 of Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the
      cation of positive discrimination measures.                                   minimum safety and health requirements for work with display
                                                                                screen equipment (fifth individual Directive within the meaning
3.    Article 2(1) and (4) of Directive 76/207 does not preclude a                  of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), must be interpreted
      rule of national case-law under which a candidate belonging to                as including screens that display film recordings in analogue or
      the under-represented sex may be granted preference over a                    digital form.
      competitor of the opposite sex, provided that the candidates
      possess equivalent or substantially equivalent merits, where the       2.     Article 1(3)(a) of Directive 90/270 is to be interpreted as
      candidatures are subjected to an objective assessment which                   meaning that the term ‘control cabs for ... machinery’ does not
      takes account of the specific personal situations of all the                  extend to a job such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in
      candidates.                                                                   which analogue or digital images are processed with the aid of
                                                                                technical devices and/or computer programmes in order to
4.    The question whether national rules providing for positive                    produce television broadcasts.
      discrimination in the making of appointments in higher
      education are lawful cannot depend on the level of the post to
      be filled.                                                             (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
(1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 6 July 2000
                            of 6 July 2000
                                                                             in Case C-73/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-11/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                     the Sozialgericht Münster): Viktor Movrin v Landesver-
the Arbeitsgericht Siegen): Margrit Dietrich v                                                 sicherungsanstalt Westfalen (1)
                   Westdeutscher Rundfunk (1)
                                                                             (Social security — EC Treaty — Council Regulation (EEC)
(Directive 90/270/EEC on the minimum safety and health                       No 1408/71 — Recipient of retirement pensions — Compul-
requirements for work with display screen equipment —                        sory sickness insurance scheme in Member State of residence
Scope — Meaning of display screen equipment for the                          — Contribution — Grant under the legislation of another
purposes of Article 2 — Meaning of ‘drivers’ cabs or control                                              Member State)
cabs for vehicles or machinery’ for the purposes of Article 1)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/22)
                           (2000/C 302/21)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-11/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                 In Case C-73/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arbeitsgericht                   the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Sozialgericht (Social
 ---pagebreak--- 21.10.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 302/13
Court) Münster, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the                     of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx, assisted by F.P. Louis and
proceedings pending before that court between Viktor Movrin                  A. Vallery) — application for a declaration that, by communi-
and Landesversicherungsanstalt Westfalen (Regional Insurance                 cating to the Commission a programme for the implemen-
Office, Westphalia) on the interpretation of the EC Treaty and               tation of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on                    concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135,
the application of social security schemes to employed persons,              p. 40) which does not comply with the directive as regards the
to self-employed persons and to members of their families                    Brussels-Capital Region, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
moving within the Community, as amended and updated by                       fulfil its obligations under that directive and, in particular,
Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ                     Article 17 thereof — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
1997 L 28, p. 1) the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                     of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber,
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), President of the                      R. Schintgen, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and F. Macken (Rap-
Chamber, R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and                      porteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; D. Louterman-
V. Skouris, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von                    Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a                   judgment on 6 July 2000, in which it:
judgment on 6 July 2000, in which it held that:
                                                                             1.    Declares that, by communicating to the Commission a pro-
On a proper construction of Article 1(t) and Article 10(1) of Council              gramme for the implementation of Council Directive
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application                     91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water
of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                   treatment which does not comply with that directive as regards
persons and to members of their families moving within the                         the Brussels-Capital Region, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC)                       to fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of that directive;
No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, a sickness insurance contribution
subsidy provided for in the legislation of a Member State, such as the       2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
subsidy at issue in the main proceedings, constitutes an old-age cash
benefit for the purposes of those provisions. The recipient of an old-
age pension payable under that legislation may claim such a subsidy          (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
even if he is resident in another Member State where he is compulsorily
affiliated to the sickness insurance scheme.
(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 21 June 2000
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    in Case C-514/99: French Republic v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Application for annulment — Manifest inadmissibility)
                              of 6 July 2000
                                                                                (2000/C 302/24)
in Case C-236/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                    ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                 to transpose Directive 91/271/EEC)
                                                                             (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                             (2000/C 302/23)
                                                                             In Case C-514/99: French Republic (Agents: R. Abraham,
                       (Language of the case: French)                        K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Loosli-Surrans) v Commission of
                                                                             the European Communities (Agents: D. Booß and G. Berscheid)
                                                                             — application for annulment of the Commission’s decision
                                                                             refusing to modify or revoke its Decision 1999/514/EC of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       23 July 1999 setting the date on which dispatch from the
                      in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             United Kingdom of bovine products under the date-based
                                                                             export scheme may commence by virtue of Article 6(5) of
In Case C-236/99: Commission of the European Communities                     Council Decision 98/256/EC (OJ 1999 L 195, p. 42) — the
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and O. Couvert-Castéra) v Kingdom                 Court, composed of. G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,


title: Case C-69/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Roma (Italy) lodged on 11 February 2013 — Mediaset SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Roma (Italy) lodged on 11 February 2013 — Mediaset SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
   (Case C-69/13)
   2013/C 147/11
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale civile di Roma

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mediaset SpA

      Defendant: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the national court called upon to rule on the amount of State aid which the Commission has ordered to be recovered bound, as regards both the existence of the State aid and its amount, by the Commission’s Decision of 24 January 2007 adopted upon the conclusion of procedure No C 52/2005 concerning State aid, as supplemented by the determinations which the Commission made in its notes of 11 June 2008 COMP/H4/EK/cd D(2008) 127 and 23 October 2009 COMP/H4/CN/si D(2009)230 and as confirmed by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 15 June 2010 in Case T-177/07?

               2.

               If the first question should be answered in the negative: In affirming in its judgment of 15 June 2010 in Case T-177/07 that it is for the national court to rule on the amount of the State aid, did the Court of Justice intend to restrict that power to the quantification of an amount which, inasmuch as it relates to State aid actually implemented and received, must necessarily have a positive value and cannot therefore be nil, or

               3.

               Did the Court of Justice, in affirming in its judgment of 15 June 2010 in Case T-177/07 that it is for the national court to rule on the amount of the State aid, instead mean to ascribe to the national court the power to assess the claim for the recovery of State aid insofar as concerns both the existence of the State aid and its quantum and also, therefore, the power to hold that there is no obligation to repay aid?


               3.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/13

         Action brought on 28 June 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway
   (Case E-9/13)
   2013/C 287/09
   An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 28 June 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Markus Schneider, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by failing (i) to adopt, or (ii) to notify the Authority forthwith of, all the measure necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 16a of Chapter II of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2010/48/EU of 5 July 2010 adapting to technical progress Directive 2009/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed (both except for paragraph 3 of Annex II to the Directive on roadworthiness certificates which is only to be implemented by 31 December 2013), the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.

               2.

               Order the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Directive 2010/48/EU and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, all the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed (both except for paragraph 3 of Annex II to the Directive on roadworthiness certificates which is only to be implemented by 31 December 2013).


title: Case T-4/03: Action brought on 8 January 2003 by Giorgio Lebedef against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 55/38               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           8.3.2003
Action brought on 7 January 2003 by Everlast World’s                     Pleas in law:                  —    There are no absolute
Boxing Headquarters Corporation against the Office for                                                       grounds for refusal to regis-
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                                                        ter the mark within the
                            Designs)                                                                         meaning of Article 7(1)(c)
                                                                                and (b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94 ( 1).
                          (Case T-3/03)
                                                                                —    The trade mark has become
                         (2003/C 55/92)                                                                      distinctive in relation to the
                                                                                goods or services for which
                                                                                registration is requested in
                  (Language of the case: German)                                                             consequence of the use
                                                                                which has been made of it,
                                                                                in       accordance       with
                                                                                Article 7(3) of Regulation
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                               (EC) No 40/94.
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
7 January 2003 by Everlast World’s Boxing Headquarters
Corporation, New York, represented by A. Barth, Rechtsan-                (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
wältin.                                                                       Community trade mark (OJ 1993 L 11, p. 1).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     set aside paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part of
      Decision R 391/2001-1 of the First Board of Appeal of
      the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
      30 October 2002;
—     order the Office to pay the costs.
                                                                         Action brought on 8 January 2003 by Giorgio Lebedef
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case T-4/03)
Trade mark for which          The word mark ‘Choice of Cham-
Community registration        pions’        —         Application
sought:                       No 1508498                                                           (2003/C 55/93)
Goods or services:            Goods of Classes 18, 25 and 28
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Decision       challenged     Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of           examiner
Appeal:
Decision of the Board of      Annulment of the examiner’s
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Appeal:                       decision in respect of ‘Leather and
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                              imitations of leather and goods            European Communities on 8 January 2003 by Giorgio Lebedef,
                              made from these materials’ so far
                                                                         residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by
                              as contained in Class 18; ‘animal          G. Bounéou, avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                              skins and hides’, ‘trunks and trav-
                              elling bags; umbrellas, parasols
                              and walking sticks’ and ‘Play-
                              things; decorations for Christmas          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                              trees’. Dismissal of the complaint
                              in respect of ‘whips, harness and
                              saddlery’, ‘Clothing, footwear,            —     annul the decision of Appointing Authority of the
                              headgear’ and ‘Games; gymnastic                  Commission of the European Communities of 21 Decem-
                              and sporting articles’ so far as                 ber 2001 not to include the applicant’s name in the list
                              contained in Class 28, and dis-                  of most deserving officials and not to promote him to
                              missal of the application for dis-               grade B1 in the promotion exercise for 2001 (decision
                              tinctive force as a result of use in             adopted following reconsideration of the applicant’s file
                              respect of those goods.                          during the 2001 promotion exercise);
 ---pagebreak--- 8.3.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 55/39
—     annul, to the extent necessary, the decision notified by             Pleas in law and main arguments
      Note 41280 of the Vice-President of the Commission of
      the European Communities, Mr Neil Kinnock, dated
      25 September 2002, not to include the applicant’s name               The applicant companies in the present case object to the
      in the list of most deserving officials and not to promote           extension by the contested act of the exemption arrangement
      him to grade B1 in the promotion exercise for 2001                   from Article 90 of the Treaty in favour of the French overseas
      (decision in reply to the applicant’s Claim No R 220/                departments.
      02, brought for the annulment of the abovementioned
      decision of 21 December 2001);
                                                                           In support of their arguments, they submit that there is
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay such costs as the Court may assess.                              infringement of Article 299(2) of the Treaty in so far as the
                                                                           Council adopted the contested measure in breach of the
                                                                           conditions laid down therein. The preparatory acts leading up
                                                                           to the contested decision, particularly the report of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Commission to the Council dated 24 November 1999, and
                                                                           points 3 and 5 of the statement of the grounds for the decision
                                                                           proposal by the Commission to the Council of 23 August
In support of his action, the applicant alleges, first, an                 2002 (COM 2002 473 FINAL) show that the prerequisite
infringement of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations and of              conditions for validly authorising an extension of the special
the principle of non-discrimination. The applicant further                 tax arrangements in favour of the overseas departments have
alleges an infringement of the principle of respect for the rights         not yet been satisfied.
of the defence, an infringement of the principle prohibiting
arbitrary proceedings and of the obligation to state reasons, an
infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and of            As regards Decision 89/688 of 22 December 1989, the effects
the rule ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’ and, lastly, infringe-           of which were extended by the contested decision, the
ment of the duty to have regard for the interests of officials.            applicants question its legality on the basis of Article 241 of
                                                                           the Treaty, on the grounds that the Council was not competent
                                                                           to authorise it in 1989. They submit that that decision
                                                                           constituted a derogation from Article 95 of the EC Treaty
                                                                           (now Article 90) and thus could no longer be taken by the
                                                                           Council after expiry of the two-year time period provided for
                                                                           in 1957, in the second subparagraph of Article 227(2) of the
Action brought on 9 January 2003 by Ayassami & Fils                        EC Treaty.
EURL and Others against the Council of the European
                              Union
                          (Case T-5/03)
                         (2003/C 55/94)
                    (Language of the case: French)                         Action brought on 10 January 2003 by COLDIRETTI —
                                                                           Federazione Regionale Coltivatori Diretti della Sardegna e
                                                                           CIA — Confederazione Italiana Agricoltori della Sardegna
                                                                               against Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 9 January 2003 by Ayassami & Fils EURL,                                              (Case T-9/03)
established in Saint-François (Guadeloupe), and 23 other
undertakings, represented by John Sylvanus Dagnon, avocat.                                         (2003/C 55/95)
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
—     Annul Council Decision 2002/973/EC of 10 December
      2002 amending Decision 89/688/EEC of 22 December
      1989 concerning the dock dues in the French overseas
      departments Commission Regulation (OJ 2002 L 337,                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      p. 83).                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 10 January 2003 by COLDIRETTI
—     Declare that Council Decision 89/688/EEC of 22 Decem-                — Federazione Regionale Coltivatori Diretti della Sardegna e
      ber 1989 concerning the dock dues in the French overseas             CIA — Confederazione Italiana Agricoltori della Sardegna,
      departments (OJ 1989 L 399, p. 46) is inapplicable.                  represented by Giovanni Dore and Fabio Ciulli, lawyers.