title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 November 2001 in Case C-221/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Genova ): Giuseppe Conte v Stefania Rossi (Architects' fees — Summary procedure for the recovery of debts — Opinion of the professional association — Articles 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 EC and 81 EC))

text:
C 84/4                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            6.4.2002
2.    The fact that, in concluding a collective agreement specific to       1.    Declares that, by providing for a second system of training
      one undertaking, a domestic employer can pay wages lower                    leading to entry to the profession of dentist, which does not
      than the minimum wage laid down in a collective agreement                   comply with Council Directive 78/687/EEC of 25 July 1978
      declared to be generally applicable, whilst an employer estab-              concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law,
      lished in another Member State cannot do so, constitutes an                 regulation or administrative action in respect of the activities of
      unjustified restriction on the freedom to provide services.                 dental practitioners, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under that directive.
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                                  2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action.
                                                                            3.    Orders the Italian Republic and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities to pay their own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 29 November 2001
in Case C-202/99: Commission of the European Communi-                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 78/687/EEC — Maintenance of a second system of
training leading to entry to the profession of dentist —                                          of 29 November 2001
Maintenance of the possibility of dual registration in the
register of doctors and in that of dentists for doctors                     in Case C-221/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
      mentioned in Article 19 of Directive 78/686/EEC)                      the Giudice di Pace di Genova ): Giuseppe Conte v
                                                                                Stefania Rossi (1)
                             (2002/C 84/06)
                                                                            (Architects’ fees — Summary procedure for the recovery of
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        debts — Opinion of the professional association — Articles 5
                                                                              and 85 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 EC and 81 EC))
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                     (2002/C 84/07)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-202/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Traversa and B. Mongin) v Italian Republic (Agent:              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
U. Leanza, assisted by P. G. Ferri) — application for a                                        in the European Court Reports)
declaration that, by maintaining a second system of training
for entry into the dental profession, which is contrary to
Council Directive 78/687/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the
coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or                  In Case C-221/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
administrative action in respect of the activities of dental                EC from the Giudice di Pace di Genova (Magistrate’s Court,
practitioners (OJ 1978 L 233, p. 10), and by maintaining the                Genoa) (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
possibility for doctors who practise as dentists to be doubly               pending before that court between Giuseppe Conte and
registered in the registers of medical and dental practitioners,            Stefania Rossi — on the interpretation of Articles 5 and 85 of
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under             the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 EC and 81 EC) — the Court
that directive — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                    (Fifth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the
P. Jann, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-                   Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,
teur), A. La Pergola, L. Sevón and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;              D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and
P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the              C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 November 2001, in                     H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given
which it:                                                                   a judgment on 29 November 2001, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 6.4.2002                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 84/5
1.    Articles 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 EC and             1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
      81 EC) do not preclude national legislation which, in the                    European Communities of 22 April 1999 in Case T-112/97
      context of a summary procedure for the recovery of debts relating            Monsanto v Commission;
      to the fees of an architect, a member of a professional
      association, requires the court seised of the dispute to follow the    2.    Dismisses the application for annulment of Decision C(97)
      opinion of that association in relation to the settlement of those           148 final of the Commission of 14 January 1997 concerning
      fees in so far as that opinion ceases to be binding where the                the definition of a position, in accordance with Article 175 of
      debtor initiates proceedings inter partes.                                   the EC Treaty, on the inclusion of bovine somatotrophin in
                                                                                Annex II to Regulation No 2377/90;
2.    Articles 5 and 85 of the Treaty do not preclude national
      legislation which provides that the members of a profession may        3.    Orders Monsanto Company to bear its own costs and to
      set at their discretion the fees for certain services which they             pay the costs incurred by the Commission of the European
      perform.                                                                     Communities both before the Court of First Instance and the
                                                                                Court of Justice;
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.                                                   4.    Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs incurred both
                                                                                before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           8 January 2002                                                              5 February 2002
                                                                             in Case C-255/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-248/99 P: French Republic v Monsanto Com-                                   the Oberster Gerichtshof): Anna Humer (1)
                                pany (1)
                                                                             (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Definition of ‘family
(Appeal — Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 — Application to                       benefits’ — Payment of advances on maintenance payments
include a recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST) in the                      — Condition that the minor child must be resident within
list of substances not subject to a maximum residue limit —                     the national territory — Entitlement to benefits abroad)
Prohibition on placing that substance on the market —
            Rejection of the application for inclusion)                                                 (2002/C 84/09)
                            (2002/C 84/08)                                                       (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: English)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-255/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                             by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             in the proceedings pending before that court concerning the
In Case C-248/99 P, French Republic (agents: initially                       minor Anna Humer, on the interpretation of Articles 3, 4(1)(h),
R. Abraham and J.-F. Dobelle and K. Rispal-Bellanger and                     73 and 74 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
C. Vasak, and, subsequently, G. de Bergues): Appeal against                  14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                  employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
Communities (Second Chamber) of 22 April 1999 in                             of their families moving within the Community, as amended
Case T-112/97 Monsanto v Commission [1999] ECR II-1277,                      and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to                2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), and of Articles 3(1)
the proceedings being: Monsanto Company, registered in                       and 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware (United                    15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers
States of America), (agents: C. Stanbrook, QC, and D. Holland,               within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II),
barrister), and Commission of the European Communities                       p. 475), the Court, composed of: P. Jann, President of the First
(agents: J.-L. Dewost, R. Wainwright and T. Christoforou) the                and Fifth Chambers, acting for the President, F. Macken
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the                and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
Chamber, A. La Pergola, L. Sevón (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet                  D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet,
and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges, Advocate General: S. Alber,                   R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges, Advocate General:
Registrar: L. Hewlett, Administrator, has given a judgment on                S. Alber, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has
8 January 2002, in which it:                                                 given a judgment on 5 February 2002, in which it has ruled:


title: Action brought on 15 January 1999 by NV Firma Léon Van Parys, NV Pacific Fruit Company, Pacific Fruchtimport GmbH and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-11/99)

text:
13.3.1999             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 71/37
Action brought on 4 January 1999 by Pantelis N.                    Action brought on 15 January 1999 by NV Firma LeÂon
Andriotis against the European Commission and the                  Van Parys, NV Pacific Fruit Company, Pacific
European Centre for the Development of Vocational                  Fruchtimport GmbH and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA
                     Training (CEDEFOP)                               against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-5/99)                                                    (Case T-11/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/69)
                        (1999/C 71/68)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                (Language of the case: Greek)                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 15 January
An action against the European Commission and the                  1999 by NV Firma LeÂon Van Parys and NV Pacific Fruit
European Centre for the Development of Vocational                  Company, both established in Antwerp (Belgium), Pacific
Training (hereinafter CEDEFOP') was brought before the            Fruchtimport GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany),
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on             and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA, established in Rome
4 January 1999 by Pantelis N. Andriotis, architect-                (Italy), all represented by P. Vlaemminck, L. Van Den
engineer, resident in Thessaloniki, represented by Stella          Hende and J. Holmens, of the Ghent Bar, with an address
Ioannidou, of the Thessaloniki Bar, with an address for            for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch,
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyn Korn,              of Messrs Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
21 Rue de Nassau, L-2113.
                                                                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        (1) annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of
                                                                        28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the
                                                                        implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                        No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the
Ð find the action admissible;                                           Community.
                                                                   (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
Ð order the defendants to inform him in writing either of
    the precise notification in the Official Journal of the        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    results of procedure APO/97/005 or that there has
    been no such notification;                                     Ð The changes introduced and implemented by the
                                                                        contested regulation are in breach of the GATS
                                                                        agreement and the GATT 1994 agreement, the
Ð order the defendants to pay his costs.                                intention of the Community being to adapt itself
                                                                        thereto; they also violate the agreement between the
                                                                        EC and the members of the Cartagena Group, the
                                                                        principle of the protection of legitimate expectations,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     the principle of good faith in public international law,
                                                                        the customary rules of international law as codified in
                                                                        the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the
The applicant took part in award procedure APO/97/005                   binding effect of an award made in arbitration
of which CEDEFOP gave notice in July 1997 (1). In                       proceedings provided for in an international agreement
November 1997 he found out that the contract had been                   concluded by the Community. Those violations result
awarded to another candidate. However, notice of that                   both from Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 itself and
award was never published, even though such publication                 from Council Regulation (EC) No 1637/98 amending
is mandatory under Articles 16 and 17 of Council                        Regulation (EEC) No 404/93, which constitutes the
Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the                     legal basis of the regulation contested in the present
coordination of procedures for the award of public service              case.
contracts (2).
                                                                   Ð The Commission has exceeded its executive powers by
                                                                        laying down rules for the implementation of
In the applicant's view, the decision by CEDEFOP                        Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 which conflict with
awarding the contract was biased and, furthermore, when                 GATS and GATT 1994.
the contract was signed, the selected contractor was
replaced in an impermissible and unlawful manner.                  Ð Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                        expectations and of the general legal principle patere
                                                                        legem quam ipse fecisti', in that the Commission has
(1) OJ S 139, 19.7.1997, p. 44.                                         not issued import licences to the actual importer', in
(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.                                          accordance with the declaration made by it to the
                                                                        Council.


C 149/44              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 27.5.2000
The applicant raises five main pleas:                                     applicant to be heard on the conclusion reached at recital
                                                                          164 of the contested decision.
— The evidence does not support the finding that there was
                                                                      — No fine should have been imposed on the applicant;
   an EU/Japan agreement which prohibited sales by Japanese
   producers in the domestic territories of the European                  alternatively, the fine imposed should be substantially
   producers. Nor is there evidence that the Japanese pro-                reduced.
   ducers were party to any agreement including a prohibition
   on sales by the European producers in their domestic
   territories.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-599/97 (1)
— Even if there was sufficient evidence to establish an
                                                                                (2000/C 149/81)
   infringement, the infringement is of a considerably narrow-
   er scope than is found in the decision.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
— The evidence does not support the finding that the
   restrictions in the EU agreement were the inevitable and           By order of 17 January 2000, the President of the Second
   necessary consequence of the EU/Japan agreement.                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
— The Commission has infringed Article 56 of the EEA                  Case T-599/97: Swedish Match Advertising Products NV/SA v
   Agreement by initiating its own investigation prior to the         Council of the European Union.
   formal transfer of the file from the EFTA Surveillance
   Authority. Furthermore, it has breached the right of the           (1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.


title: Case C-363/00: Action brought on 29 September 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
23.12.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 372/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     under heading No 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature. Between
                                                                           July 1990 and May 1995 those cards were therefore to be classified
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                  under heading No 8471 as units of machines of that type.
                       of 19 October 2000                                  (1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.
in Case C-339/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): Peacock AG v Haupt-
                      zollamt Paderborn (1)
(Common customs tariff — Tariff headings — Tariff
classification of network cards — Classification in the
                    Combined Nomenclature)                                 Action brought on 29 September 2000 by the Com-
                                                                           mission of the European Communities against the Italian
                          (2000/C 372/04)                                                               Republic
                                                                                (Case C-363/00)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2000/C 372/05)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 Septem-
In Case C-339/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              ber 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht                  represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal adviser, acting as Agent,
Düsseldorf (Finance Court, Düsseldorf), Germany, for a pre-                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
liminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court               Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
between Peacock AG and Hauptzollamt Paderborn — on the
interpretation of Note 5(B) to Chapter 84 of the Combined                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff, set out in
Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July
1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the                 (a)   Declare that by not making available to the Commission
Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended                          the sum of LIT 1 484 956 000 000 by way of own
by the annexes to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2886/89                         resources within the period laid down by Articles 9 and
of 2 August 1989 (OJ 1989 L 282, p. 1), Commission                               10 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000
Regulation (EEC) No 2472/90 of 31 July 1990 (OJ 1990                             of 22 May 2000 implementingt Decision 94/728/EC,
L 247, p. 1), Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2587/91 of                          Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own
26 July 1991 (OJ 1991 L 259, p. 1), Commission Regulation                        resources (1), and refusing to pay interest for delay on that
(EEC) No 2505/92 of 14 July 1992 (OJ 1992 L 267, p. 1),                          amount owed pursuant to Article 11 of the same
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2551/93 of 10 August                              regulation, the Italian Republic is in breach of its obli-
1993 (OJ 1993 L 241, p. 1) and Commission Regulation (EC)                        gations under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of that regulation;
No 3115/94 of 20 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 345, p. 1), —
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President             (b) Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
of the First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and
L. Sevón, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 19 October 2000, in which it has ruled:
                                                                           The Commission argues that, by crediting to the Commis-
                                                                           sion’s account only LIT 1 486 594 526 rather than
Note 5 (B) to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature of the               LIT 1 486 442 594 526 on 30 May 1996, and not crediting
Common Customs Tariff, set out in Annex 1 to Council Regulation            the remainder due until 27 June 1996, the Italian Republic
(EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical             unduly delayed making available Community own resources,
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by               in breach of the regulation.
the annexes to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2886/89 of
2 August 1989, Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2472/90 of
31 July 1990, Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2587/91 of                    Commission staff therefore considered it necessary to apply
26 July 1991, Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2505/92 of                    Article 11 of Regulation No 1552/89, (2) providing for pay-
14 July 1992, Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2551/93 of                    ment of interest where a Member State is late in crediting own
10 August 1993 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 3115/94                   resources to the account opened for that purpose in the name
of 20 December 1994, does not preclude the classification of network       of the Commission with the body designated by each Member
cards designed to be installed in automatic data processing machines       State.
 ---pagebreak--- C 372/4               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23.12.2000
The Commission cannot accept from Member States rectifi-                   3.    Is the requirement laid down in Article 1(b) of Directive
cations with retroactive value such as that made by the Italian                  93/96/EEC that the management of the body governed
Ministry of the Treasury on 27 June 1996, given that credits                     by public law must be subject to supervision by the State
of sums with retroactive value make no sense in a system of                      or a regional or local authority also fulfilled by a
non-interest bearing accounts such as the ‘own resources’                        mere review as provided for through the Kontrollamt
account in the name of the Commission, and to allow                              (Monitoring Office) of the City of Vienna?
accounting rectifications with retroactive effect would deprive
the obligation to pay interest for delay of any practical
effectiveness whatsoever.
                                                                           (1) OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1.
(1) OJ L 130, 31.5.2000, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 155, 7.6.1989, p. 1.
                                                                           Action brought on 11 October 2000 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-375/00)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vergabekon-
trollsenat des Landes Wien (Austria) by order of 14 Sep-                                            (2000/C 372/07)
tember 2000 in the case of Adolf Truley GmbH v
                    Bestattung Wien GmbH
                                                                           An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 October
                        (Case C-373/00)                                    2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,
                                                                           and Roberto Amorosi, judge on secondment to the Legal
                        (2000/C 372/06)                                    Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                           Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 14 September 2000 by
the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien, which was received               The applicant claims that the Court should:
at the Court Registry on 11 October 2000, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Adolf Truley GmbH v Bestattung Wien
GmbH on the following questions:                                           —     Declare that, by failing to draw up a systematic and
                                                                                complete plan of action at national level, including a
                                                                                timetable for the improvement of surface water, the
1.    Must the term ‘needs in the general interest’ in Article 1(b)              territorial plan for Lombardy still being missing, so that
      of Council Directive 93/36/EEC (1) of 14 June 1993                         the Commission has not been able to carry out a
      coordinating procedures for the award of public supply                     thorough examination of said national plans, the Italian
      contracts be interpreted as meaning that                                   Republic has failed to comply with Article 4(2) of Council
                                                                                Directive 75/440/EEC (1) of 16 June 1975 concerning
                                                                                the quality required of surface water intended for the
      (a)  the definition of needs in the general interest must                  abstraction of drinking water in the Member States.
           be derived from the national legal system of the
           Member State?
                                                                           —     Order the Italian Republic defendant to pay the costs.
      (b) the fact that a regional or local authority’s obligation
           is subsidiary is in itself sufficient for the existence of
           a need in the general interest to be assumed?                   Pleas in law and main arguments
2.    In interpreting the requirement ‘meeting needs ... not               The Commission claims that, although, so far as concerns
      having an industrial or commercial character’ laid down              certain types of water, there have been separate improvement
      in Directive 93/36/EEC, is (a) the existence of significant          plans at regional level, such plans do not cover all the water
      competition an imperative condition or (b) are the factual           referred to in Directive 75/440/EEC, so that the Commission
      or legal circumstances the determinant factors in that               takes the view that the Italian Republic has not drawn up the
      respect?                                                             systematic plan as required under Article 4(2) of the directive.


title: Case C-247/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 November 2012 — Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union, Wenzhou Taima Shoes Co. Ltd, European Commission, Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC), BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio & C. Sas (Appeal — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 — Imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Article 2(7)(b) — Market economy treatment — Article 9(6) — Individual treatment — Article 17(3) — Sampling — Article 20(5) — Rights of the defence)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 November 2012 — Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union, Wenzhou Taima Shoes Co. Ltd, European Commission, Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC), BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio & C. Sas
   (Case C-247/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 - Imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 2(7)(b) - Market economy treatment - Article 9(6) - Individual treatment - Article 17(3) - Sampling - Article 20(5) - Rights of the defence)
   2013/C 9/05
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd (represented by: M. Sánchez Rydelski, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and R. Szostak, Agents, and by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, and N. Chesaites, Barrister), Wenzhou Taima Shoes Co. Ltd, European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, Agents), Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC), BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio & C. Sas

      Re:

   Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) in Joined Cases T-407/06 and T-408/06 Zhejiang Aokang Shoes and Wenzhou Taima Shoes v Council [2010] ECR II-747, by which the General Court dismissed an action for the annulment in part of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 March 2010 in Joined Cases T-407/06 and T-408/06 Zhejiang Aokang Shoes and Wenzhou Taima Shoes v Council;

               2.

               Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam in so far as it concerns Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred by Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd. both at first instance and in connection with the present proceedings;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs, both at first instance and in connection with the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Case T-151/11: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014  — Telefónica de España and Telefónica Móviles España v Commission (State aid — Public service broadcasting — Aid planned by Spain for RTVE — Alteration of the funding scheme — Replacement of advertising revenues by new taxes on television and telecommunication operators — Decision declaring the new funding scheme compatible with the internal market — Procedural rights — New aid — Alteration of the existing aid scheme — Fiscal measure constituting the method by which the aid measure is financed — Tax necessarily hypothecated to the aid — Direct impact of the revenue of the tax on the amount of the aid — Proportionality — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014 — Telefónica de España and Telefónica Móviles España v Commission
   (Case T-151/11) (1)

   ((State aid - Public service broadcasting - Aid planned by Spain for RTVE - Alteration of the funding scheme - Replacement of advertising revenues by new taxes on television and telecommunication operators - Decision declaring the new funding scheme compatible with the internal market - Procedural rights - New aid - Alteration of the existing aid scheme - Fiscal measure constituting the method by which the aid measure is financed - Tax necessarily hypothecated to the aid - Direct impact of the revenue of the tax on the amount of the aid - Proportionality - Duty to state reasons))
   2014/C 292/34
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Telefónica de España, SA (Madrid, Spain); and Telefónica Móviles España, SA (Madrid) (represented by: F. González Díaz and F. Salerno, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Valero Jordana and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by M. Muñoz Pérez, subsequently by S. Centeno Huerta and N. Díaz Abad, subsequently by N. Díaz Abad, and lastly by M. Sampol Pucurull, abogados del Estado); and Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española, SA (RTVE) (Madrid) (represented by A. Martínez Sánchez, A. Vázquez-Guillén Fernandez de la Riva and J. Rodríguez Ordóñez, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2011/1/EU of 20 July 2010 on the State aid scheme C 38/09 (ex NN 58/09) which Spain is planning to implement for Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española (RTVE) (OJ 2011 L 1, p. 9).

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Telefónica de España, SA and Telefónica Móviles España, SA shall bear their own costs and pay jointly the costs incurred by the European Commission and Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española, SA (RTVE).

               3.

               The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: Case F-56/07: Action brought on 11 June 2007 — Gerochristos v Parliament

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/44

         Action brought on 11 June 2007 — Gerochristos v Parliament
   (Case F-56/07)
   (2007/C 183/86)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Ioannis Gerochristos (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Parliament's decision of 26 September 2006 to appoint the applicant as a probationary official in the function group for administrators with the classification of grade AD 6, step 3;

               —

               annul the Parliament's subsequent decision to withhold EUR 994.95 from the applicant's basic salary and order it to repay that amount to him as soon as practicable after the decision to annul;

               —

               order the defendant to pay, by way of damages for non-material or material damage and the prejudice to the applicant's career, the amount of EUR 25 000, subject to increase or decrease in the course of the proceedings;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a successful candidate in Open Competition EPSO A/18/04 (1), notice of which was published before the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (2), was a member of the temporary staff in grade AST 8 at the time of his recruitment as an official in grade AD 6.
   In support of his action, the applicant relies, first, on breach of the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’), in that the administration never provided him with an explanation for his classification in grade AD 6 or for the decision to withhold the amount of EUR 994.95 from his basic salary.
   Second, the applicant: (i) claims that there has been a breach of Article 31 of the Staff Regulations, of Articles 2 and 8 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations and of the provisions of the competition notice and (ii) raises a plea of illegality in respect of Article 13(1) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.
   Third, the applicant maintains that the administration failed to apply the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, particularly in that he was penalised in comparison with members of the temporary staff and officials who benefit from a more favourable classification under Article 5(2) and (4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations or to certain provisions adopted by the Parliament's bureau on 13 February 2006.
   Fourth, the applicant replies on breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, particularly as the competition notice was for the drawing up of a reserve list for the recruitment of administrators in grade A7/A6.
   Fifth, the applicant claims breach of the principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the interests of officials.
   Finally, the applicant submits that, in withholding the abovementioned amount from his basic salary, the administration has breached Article 85 of the Staff Regulations.

      (1)  OJ C 96 A, 21.4.2004, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 124, 27.4.2004, p. 1.


title: Case C-350/12 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2014  — Council of the European Union v Sophie in ’t Veld (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Third indent of Article 4(1)(a), second indent of Article 4(2), and Article 4(6) — Opinion of the Council’s Legal Service concerning the opening of negotiations for the conclusion of an international agreement — Exceptions to the right of access — Protection of the public interest as regards international relations — Protection of legal advice — Decision partially refusing access)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2014 — Council of the European Union v Sophie in ’t Veld
   (Case C-350/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Third indent of Article 4(1)(a), second indent of Article 4(2), and Article 4(6) - Opinion of the Council’s Legal Service concerning the opening of negotiations for the conclusion of an international agreement - Exceptions to the right of access - Protection of the public interest as regards international relations - Protection of legal advice - Decision partially refusing access))
   2014/C 292/03
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Berman, B. Driessen and C. Fekete, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Sophie in ’t Veld (represented by: O. Brouwer, E. Raedts and J. Blockx, advocaten), European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of Sophie in ’t Veld: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and N. Görlitz, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

               3)

               Orders the European Parliament and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.


title: Case T-595/13: Action brought on 13 November 2013 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM — LG Electronics (compressor technology)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/21

         Action brought on 13 November 2013 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM — LG Electronics (compressor technology)
   (Case T-595/13)
   2014/C 39/36
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Korea)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 September 2013 (Case R 1176/2012-1);

               —

               Order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘compressor technology’ for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 11 — Community trade mark application No 7420151

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: LG Electronics, Inc.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word marks ‘KOMPRESSOR PLUS’ and ‘KOMPRESSOR’ for goods in Classes 7 and 11

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


title: Case T-133/13: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2015  — Pro-Aqua International v OHIM — Rexair (WET DUST CAN’T FLY) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark WET DUST CAN’T FLY — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2015 — Pro-Aqua International v OHIM — Rexair (WET DUST CAN’T FLY)
   (Case T-133/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark WET DUST CAN’T FLY - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 081/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pro-Aqua International GmbH (Ansbach, Germany) (represented by: T. Raible, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Rajh and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Rexair LLC (Troy, Michigan, United States of America) (represented by A. Bayer, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2012 (Case R 211/2012-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between Pro-Aqua International GmbH and Rexair LLC.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Pro-Aqua International GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2001 in Joined Cases T-95/00 and T-96/00: Tamara Zaur-Gora and Danielle Dubigh v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Competition — Non-admission — Age limit — Request for review — Time-limit for lodging a complaint — Admissibility — Misuse of powers — Discrimination — Action manifestly unfounded)

text:
11.8.2001               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 227/19
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           of 3 April 2001                                  —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 19 June
                                                                                2000, notified on 26 June 2000, imposing on the
in Joined Cases T-95/00 and T-96/00: Tamara Zaur-Gora                             applicant, with effect from 1 July 2000, the disciplinary
and Danielle Dubigh v Commission of the European                                  measure of downgrading from grade A3, step 3, to
                          Communities (1)                                         grade A6, step 6, as provided for in Article 86(2)(e) of the
                                                                                Staff Regulations and, in so far as may be necessary, annul
                                                                                the implicit decision rejecting the complaint submitted on
(Officials — Competition — Non-admission — Age limit                              11 September 2000;
— Request for review — Time-limit for lodging a complaint
— Admissibility — Misuse of powers — Discrimination —
                  Action manifestly unfounded)                              —     order the defendant to pay EUR 50 000 by way of
                                                                                compensation for the damage suffered as a result of that
                                                                                decision, that sum being provisionally quantified on an
                          (2001/C 227/37)                                         equitable basis;
                                                                            —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                     (Language of the case: French)
In Joined Cases T-95/00 and T-96/00: Tamara Zaur-Gora, a
member of the auxiliary staff of the Commission of the                      Pleas in law and main arguments
European Communities, residing at Lodelinsart (Belgium), and
Danielle Dubigh, residing in Brussels, represented by
J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, avocats, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities                        Disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the appli-
(Agents: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser) — application for               cant when the administration of the defendant institution
annulment of the decisions of the selection board in compe-                 learned that his wife had been awarded an employment
tition COM/C/2/99 not to admit the applicants to that                       contract with one of its contractors and had been paid for six
competition — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                  months despite the fact that she only worked for two weeks.
composed of: J. Azizi, President, and K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 3 April 2001,
the operative part of which is as follows:                                  In the context of those disciplinary proceedings, the appointing
                                                                            authority decided that the applicant should be suspended. That
1.    The actions are declared admissible;                                  decision was subsequently annulled by the Court of First
                                                                            Instance. Following delivery of the judgment annulling the
2.    The actions are dismissed as manifestly unfounded;                    decision, the appointing authority concluded the disciplinary
                                                                            proceedings by imposing on the applicant the disciplinary
3.    The parties are to bear their own costs, including those relating
                                                                            measure of downgrading from grade A3 to grade A6, that
      to the objections of inadmissibility.
                                                                            being a more severe penalty than the one recommended by
                                                                            the Disciplinary Board. The present action is directed against
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000 and OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.                        that decision.
                                                                            In support of his claim for annulment, the applicant argues
                                                                            that the defendant failed to discharge its obligation to establish
                                                                            the veracity of its complaints — the onus of proof being
                                                                            incumbent on it in that regard. It likewise disregarded the
                                                                            presumption of innocence. According to the applicant, his
Action brought on 20 April 2001 by Claude Willeme                           wife’s employment contract was perfectly regular and there
  against the Commission of the European Communities                        was no connection between the duties performed by him and
                                                                            the conclusion of his wife’s employment contract. In addition,
                            (Case T-89/01)                                  he pleads, inter alia, violation of the right to a fair hearing, a
                                                                            manifest error of assessment and the disproportionate nature
                                                                            of the sanction imposed.
                          (2001/C 227/38)
                     (Language of the case: French)                         Lastly, the applicant asserts that the appointing authority is
                                                                            liable for the damage suffered by him as a result of the
                                                                            unlawful acts invoked.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 April 2001 by Claude Willeme,
residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
Laure Levi, avocats.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 1 June 1999 in Case T-93/99 R: Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim measures - Urgency - None)

text:
C 246/32                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.8.1999
1. Operation of the decision of 27 October 1998, imposing on the          ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
    applicant the disciplinary measure of removal from post without                                  INSTANCE
    reduction or withdrawal of entitlement to a retirement pension,
    is suspended pending delivery of final judgment in the case by the                            of 21 June 1999
    Court of First Instance;
                                                                          in Case T-56/99 R: Marlines SA v Commission of the
2. The costs are reserved.                                                                     European Communities
                                                                          (Competition — Payment of the fine — Bank guarantee —
                                                                          Procedure for interim measures — Suspension of enforce-
                                                                                ment)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/66)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                          In Case T-56/99 R: Marlines SA, established in Monrovia,
                                                                          represented by Dimitrios Papatheofanous, lawyer with right of
                         of 9 March 1999                                  audience before the Arios Pagos, Athens, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg at the office of Paul Attallas, Route de
                                                                          Trèves, Findel, v Commission of the European Communities
in Case T-205/98: Clauni S.A. and Others v Commission                     (Agents: Dimitris Triantafyllou and Richard Lyal) — application
               of the European Communities (1)                            for suspension of enforcement of Commission Decision
                                                                          1999/271/EC of 9 December 1998 relating to a proceeding
                                                                          pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.466 — Greek
                    (Manifest inadmissibility)                            Ferries) (OJ 1999 L 109, p. 24), Article 2 of which fined the
                                                                          applicant ECU 0.26 million for breach of Article 81 EC
                                                                          (formerly Article 85 of the EC Treaty) — the President of the
                          (1999/C 246/65)                                 Court of First Instance made an order on 21 June 1999, the
                                                                          operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                          1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          2. Costs are reserved.
In Case T-205/98: Clauni S.A., established at Agen (France),
Jean-Marie Bissieres, residing at La Croix Blanche (France), SA
Lomagenais, now known as SA Loma, established at Penne
D’Agenais (France), and André Lompech, residing at Canet
(France), represented by Daniel Veyssiere, of the Agen Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Aloïse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v Commission of the European                    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Communities — application for an order of the Court allowing                                         INSTANCE
a rebate application lodged by the first applicant with the
French customs authorities on 20 December 1998 in relation                                         of 1 June 1999
to certain imports of mushrooms originating in Poland — the
Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos,
President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,                 in Case T-93/99 R: Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina v Com-
Registrar, made an order on 9 March 1999, the operative part                         mission of the European Communities
of which is as follows:
                                                                             (Proceedings for interim measures — Urgency — None)
1. The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
                                                                                (1999/C 246/67)
2. The applicants are to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                 In Case T-93/99 R: Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina, an official at the
                                                                          Joint Research Centre, Ispra, represented by Mirco Rizzoglio,
                                                                          of the Milan Bar, and Franco Colussi, of the Luxembourg Bar,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at Mr Colussi’s
                                                                          chambers, 36 Rue de Wiltz, v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia) — application for,
 ---pagebreak--- 28.8.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 246/33
first, suspension of the acts preventing the transfer of part of         three posts of Director-General (grade A1) were declared
the applicant’s remuneration to the home-purchase savings                vacant on 25 June 1998: that of Director-General of the
account opened in her name with a financial institution                  Directorate-General for Finance and Financial Control (the
established in France and, second, authorisation to transfer             new DG VIII), that of Director-General of the Directorate-
immediately the sums which should have been or should                    General for Administration (DG VI) and that of Director-
shortly be transferred — the President of the Court of First             General of the Directorate-General for Personnel (DG V).
Instance made an order on 1 June 1999, the operative part of
which is as follows:                                                     The applicant, a grade A2 official of the Parliament, applied
                                                                         for the first post. Apart from that application, the Secretary-
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.                    General received three other admissible applications and two
                                                                         further applications which were inadmissible under Article
2. Costs are reserved.                                                   29(1)(a) of the Staff Regulations — including, in particular,
                                                                         that of Mr L.V. (Chef de cabinet of the President of the
                                                                         Parliament and an official of the Commission).
                                                                         Mr L.V. was appointed on 16 July 1998. The applicant was
                                                                         never officially informed of that decision, nor, a fortiori, of the
                                                                         reasons on which it was based. By letter of 16 September
Action brought on 20 April 1999 by Michael Chamier                       1998 he was informed by the Head of the Personnel Division
               against the European Parliament                           that his application for the post had been rejected.
                          (Case T-97/99)                                 The applicant maintains that:
                         (1999/C 246/68)                                 — the procedure was solely designed to formalise a decision
                                                                             — namely, to appoint Mr L.V. to the vacant post — which
                                                                             had already been adopted before the commencement of
                   (Language of the case: French)                            the procedure. The choice of Mr L.V. was the result of a
                                                                             political agreement and did not result from any proper
An action against the European Parliament was brought before                 exercise of the powers conferred on the appointing
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                   authority in accordance with Article 29 of the Staff
20 April 1999 by Michael Chamier, residing in Luxembourg,                    Regulations;
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the           — the conditions in which the appointing authority decided
offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL 30 Rue de Cessange.                         to open the exceptional recruitment procedure and to
                                                                             choose Mr L.V. are vitiated by various infringements of
                                                                             procedural rules and of Article 29 of the Staff Regulations;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision taken by the appointing authority                   — Mr L.V. does not satisfy the conditions laid clown in the
     on 16 July 1998 appointing Mr L.V. to the post of                       vacancy notice, since his qualifications and abilities are not
     Director-General of the Directorate-General for Finance                 those which are required and demanded for such an
     and Financial Control, the decision of the same date                    important position in the field of finance and financial
     rejecting the application for that post submitted by the                control;
     applicant and, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
     dated 21 January 1999 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;          — the applicant’s curriculum vitae, on the other hand, fully
                                                                             satisfies the requirements of the post. Consequently, the
— request the defendant to produce the notes sent by the                     appointing authority has committed a manifest error of
     Secretary-General to the Bureau on 22 December 1997                     assessment and has infringed Articles 7 and 27 of the Staff
     and 13 and 16 July 1998 (documents PE 265.377/BUR,                      Regulations;
     PE 271.309/BUR and PE 271.309/BUR/ADD), together
     with the file relating to Mr L.V.’s application for the post        — the appointing authority has violated the principles of
     of Director-General of the Directorate-General for Finance              sound management and of good administration; and
     and Financial Control;
                                                                         — there has been a breach of the general obligation to provide
— order the defendant to pay damages provisionally quanti-                   a statement of reasons.
     fied, on an equitable basis, in the sum of 100 000 euros;
                                                                         As to the claim for damages, the applicant maintains that the
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  alleged loss is non-material and that it results from violation
                                                                         of general principles of law and of the rules governing the
                                                                         recruitment procedure and from disregard of the interests of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          the service. His legitimate expectation, if not that he would be
                                                                         appointed to the post, at least that proper consideration would
Following the decision to split up the Parliament’s Directorate-         be given to his application for it, has been seriously prejudiced.
General V (Personnel, the Budget and Finance) and to create
two new directorates-general (the Directorate-General for the
Budget and Finance and the Directorate-General for Personnel),


title: Case C-424/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 25 July 2013 — Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH v Stadt Kempten

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 25 July 2013 — Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH v Stadt Kempten
   (Case C-424/13)
   2013/C 336/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH

      Respondent: Stadt Kempten

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that in the case of long journeys for domestic Equidae and domestic animals of bovine, ovine, caprine and porcine species, where the place of departure is in a Member State of the European Union but the place of destination is in a third country, the competent authority of the place of departure may stamp the journey log submitted by the organiser in accordance with Article 14(1)(c) only if the journey log meets the requirements set out in Article 14(1)(a)(ii) for the entire journey from the place of departure to the place of destination, and thus also for sections of the journey which lie entirely outside the territory of the European Union?

               2.

               Is Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 to be interpreted as meaning that the competent authority at the place of departure pursuant to that provision may, in accordance with Article 14(1)(b) of that regulation, require the organiser of the transport to change the arrangements for the intended long journey in such a way that it will comply with the provisions of that regulation for the entire journey from the place of departure to the place of destination, even if some sections of that journey lie entirely within third countries?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1).


title: Case C-87/06: Order of the President of the Court of 28 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n o  3 Valladolid, Spain) — Vicente Pascual García v Confederación Hidrográfica del Duero

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 28 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social no 3 Valladolid, Spain) — Vicente Pascual García v Confederación Hidrográfica del Duero
   (Case C-87/06) (1)

   (2008/C 171/47)

      Language of the case: Spanish

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.


title: Case C-329/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Finanzamt Dinslaken v Gerold Meindl (Freedom of establishment — Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) — Self-employed person — Income tax — Spouses who live apart on a non-permanent basis — Refusal of joint assessment — Spouses residing separately — Wage compensation benefits for the non-resident spouse — Income not subject to tax in the spouse's Member State of residence)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Finanzamt Dinslaken v Gerold Meindl
   (Case C-329/05) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) - Self-employed person - Income tax - Spouses who live apart on a non-permanent basis - Refusal of joint assessment - Spouses residing separately - Wage compensation benefits for the non-resident spouse - Income not subject to tax in the spouse's Member State of residence)
   (2007/C 56/11)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Dinslaken

      Defendant: Gerold Meindl

      Third party: Christine Meindl-Berger
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) — Interpretation of Article 43 of the EC Treaty — National provisions on income tax — Refusal to assess to tax jointly spouses on the ground that the income received by the wife in the Member State of her residence exceeds certain thresholds, where in that Member State that income is not subject to tax.
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) precludes a resident taxpayer from being refused, by the Member State of his residence, joint assessment to income tax with his spouse from whom he is not separated and who lives in another Member State, on the ground that that spouse received in that Member State both more than 10 % of the household's income and more than DEM 24 000, where the income received by that spouse in the second Member State is not there subject to income tax.

      (1)  OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 December 2001 in Case C-79/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo): Telefónica de España SA v Administración General del Estado (Directive 97/33/EC — Telecommunications — Interconnection of networks — Obligations imposed on network providers)

text:
16.2.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 44/3
and then R. Loosli-Surrans and G. de Bergues) — application                     in particular, by refusing to permit the marketing in its territory
for a declaration that, by refusing to adopt the measures                       after 30 December 1999 of products subject to that scheme
necessary in order to comply with:                                              which are correctly marked or labelled, the French Republic has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under those two decisions, in
                                                                                particular their provisions referred to above;
—      Council Decision 98/256/EC of 16 March 1998 concern-               2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
       ing emergency measures to protect against bovine spongi-
       form encephalopathy, amending Decision 94/474/EC                   3.    Orders the French Republic to bear two thirds of the costs and
       and repealing Decision 96/239/EC (OJ 1998 L 113,                         the Commission of the European Communities to bear the other
       p. 32), in the version resulting from Commission Decision                third;
       98/692/EC of 25 November 1998 (OJ 1998 L 328,
       p. 28), in particular with Article 6 and Annex III, and            4.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
—      Commission Decision 1999/514/EC of 23 July 1999
       setting the date on which dispatch from the United
       Kingdom of bovine products under the date-based export
       scheme may commence by virtue of Article 6(5) of
       Decision 98/256 (OJ 1999 L 195, p. 42), in particular
       with Article 1,
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in particular, by refusing to permit the marketing in its                                            (Sixth Chamber)
territory of products eligible under that scheme, which are
covered by Article 6 of, and Annex III to, Decision 98/256 as                                    of 13 December 2001
amended by Decision 98/692, after 1 August 1999, the French
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those two
decisions, in particular their provisions referred to above, and          in Case C-79/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
the EC Treaty, in particular Articles 28 EC and 10 EC — the               from the Tribunal Supremo): Telefónica de España SA v
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,                      Administración General del Estado (1)
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr (Presidents of Chambers),
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet,               (Directive 97/33/EC — Telecommunications — Intercon-
L. Sevón (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and V. Skou-            nection of networks — Obligations imposed on network
ris, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Adminis-                                           providers)
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 December
2001, in which it:                                                                                (2002/C 44/05)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
1.     Declares that, by refusing to adopt the measures necessary in      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
       order to comply with:                                                                  in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          In Case C-79/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
       —     Council Decision 98/256/EC of 16 March 1998 con-             by the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) for a preliminary ruling in
             cerning emergency measures to protect against bovine         the proceedings pending before that court between Telefónica
             spongiform encephalopathy, amending Decision                 de España SA and Administración General del Estado, third
             94/474/EC and repealing Decision 96/239/EC, in the           party: Retevisión SA, on the interpretation of Articles 4(2) and
             version resulting from Commission Decision 98/692/EC         9(2) of Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and
             of 25 November 1998, in particular with Article 6 and        of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in
             Annex III, and                                               Telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service
                                                                          and interoperability through application of the principles of
                                                                          Open Network Provision (ONP) (OJ 1997 L 199, p. 32), the
                                                                          Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken (Rapporteur),
       —     Commission Decision 1999/514/EC of 23 July 1999              President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skou-
             setting the date on which dispatch from the United           ris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges, Advocate General:
             Kingdom of bovine products under the date-based export       F.G. Jacobs, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has
             scheme may commence by virtue of Article 6(5) of             given a judgement on 13 December 2001, in which it has
             Decision 98/256, in particular with Article 1,               ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 44/4                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.2.2002
Articles 4(2) and 9(2) of Directive 97/33/EC of the European                1.    Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 2772/1999 of
Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection                  21 December 1999 providing for the general rules for a
in Telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and               compulsory beef labelling system;
interoperability through application of the principles of Open
Network Provision (ONP) must be interpreted as not precluding the
Member States from authorising national regulatory authorities to           2.    Orders that the effects of those provisions of the contested
impose on an operator having significant power on the market the ex               regulation pursuant to which the Member States may have
ante obligation to provide access to the local subscriber loop and to             adopted decisions which could be affected by the annulment are
offer interconnection at local and higher-level switching centres.                to be regarded as definitive;
                                                                            3.    Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;
( 1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                                                                            4.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities to bear their own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 13 December 2001
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-93/00: European Parliament v Council of the
                         European Union (1)                                                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 December 2001
(Regulation (EC) No 2772/1999 — Beef labelling system —
                    Competence of the Council)
                                                                            in Case C-131/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Länsrätten i Norrbottens län): Ingemar Nilsson v
                           (2002/C 44/06)                                                  Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens län (1)
                                                                            (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EEC)
                     (Language of the case: French)                         No 3508/92 — Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 — Integrated
                                                                            administration and control system for certain Community
                                                                            aid schemes — Detailed rules for application — Register of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           animals not kept up to date by farmer — Penalties)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/07)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
In Case C-93/00: European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera and
E. Waldherr) v Council of the European Union (Agents:
G. Maganza and J. Monteiro), supported by Kingdom of Spain                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) and by Commission of the                                         in the European Court Reports)
European Communities (Agent: G. Berscheid) — application
for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 2772/1999 of
21 December 1999 providing for the general rules for a
compulsory beef labelling system (OJ 1999 L 334, p. 1) — the                In Case C-131/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,           EC by the Länsrätten i Norrbottens län (Sweden) for a
F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of                       preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
Chambers), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, L. Sevón (Rapporte-            between Ingemar Nilsson and Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens
ur), M. Wathelet, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;              län on the interpretation of Article 5 of Regulation (EEC)
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for             No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated
the Registrar, has given a judgement on 13 December 2001,                   administration and control system for certain Community aid
in which it:                                                                schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 3 March 1997 in Case T-6/97 R: Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. v. Commission of the European Communities (Common organization of the markets - Bananas - Provisional reduction coefficient - Suspension of operation - Interim measures - Admissibility of the application for interim measures - Serious and irreparable harm)

text:
31 . 5 . 97           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 166/ 13
          Removal from the register of C-339/96 ( ] )               a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des Affaires de Sé
                         ( 97/C 166/28 )                            curité Sociale des Bouches du Rhône ): Joao Farias v.
                                                                    Caisse Régionale d'Assurance Maladie du Sud-est.
By order of 5 March 1997 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-339/96 ( reference for              OJ No C 354 , 23 . 11 . 1996 .
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 3 March 1997
                     of 26 February 1997
                                                                    in Case T-6/97 R: Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit
in Case T-191/96 R: C. A. S. Succhi di Frutta SpA v.                Europe Ltd & Co. v. Commission of the European
          Commission of the European Communities                                                Communities
(Competition — Procedure on application for interim                 (Common organization of the markets — Bananas —
measures — Application for suspension of operation of a             Provisional reduction coefficient — Suspension of
                            measure)                                operation — Interim measures — Admissibility of the
                                                                    application for interim measures — Serious and
                           97/C 166/29                                                      irreparable harm)
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/30 )
                (Language of the case: Italian)                                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                    In Case T-6/97 R, Comafrica SpA, established in Genoa,
                                                                    Italy, and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co., established
In Case T-191/96 R: C. A. S. Succhi di Frutta SpA,                  in Hamburg, Germany, represented by Bernard O'Connor,
established in Verona ( Italy), represented by Alberto              Solicitor, and Bonifacio Garcia Porras, of the Salamanca
Miele, of the Padua Bar, Antonio Tizzano and Gian                   Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar, and Carlo Scarpa, of            Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 22 Avenue Marie-
the Venice Bar, with an address for service at the Tizzano          Adèlaïde, against Commission of the European
Chambers, 36 Place du Grand Sablon, Brussels, v.                    Communities (Agent: Xavier Lewis ) — application under
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Paolo               Articles 185 and 186 of the EC Treaty for: ( i ) an order
Ziotti and Alberto Dal Ferro ) — application for                    suspending operation of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
suspension of operation of the decision of the Commission           No 2035/96 of 24 October 1996 fixing the single
                                                                    reduction     coefficient     for  the  determination of  the
of 6 September 1996 amending its decision of 14 June
 1996 on the supply of fruit juice and fruit jams intended          provisional quantity of bananas to be allocated to each
for the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan, provided for by           operator in Categories A and B from the tariff quota for
Regulation ( EC ) No 228/96 — the President of the Court            1997 ( OJ No L 272, 1996 , p. 6 ) in so far as that
of First Instance made an order on 26 February 1997, the            regulation affects the applicants; or, alternatively, erga
operative part of which is as follows :                             omnes, ( ii ) an order that the correct number of licences be
                                                                    issued to the applicants in accordance with their rights
                                                                    under Community law; and ( iii ) any additional orders
                                                                    which the Court considers necessary for the purposes of
                                                                    granting interim relief to the applicants — the President of
 1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;             the Court of First Instance made an order on 3 March
                                                                     1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                     1.  The application for interim measures is dismissed.
 2.  the costs are reserved.
                                                                    2.   Costs are reserved.