title: Judgment of the Court of 20 March 2001 in Case C-33/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam): Hassan Fahmi, M. Esmoris Cerdeiro-Pinedo Amado v Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank (Article 41 of the EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement — Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Social security — Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC) — Freedom of movement for persons — Non-discrimination — Recipients of an invalidity pension no longer residing in the competent Member State — Amendment of the legislation on study finance)

text:
C 200/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        14.7.2001
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     1.   Neither the Cooperation Agreement between the European
                                                                                Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco signed at
                                                                                Rabat on 27 April 1976 and approved on behalf of the
                         of 20 March 2001                                       Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of
                                                                                26 September 1978, nor Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now,
                                                                                after amendment, Article 39 EC), nor Council Regulation
in Case C-33/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                        (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam): Hassan                              social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
Fahmi, M. Esmoris Cerdeiro-Pinedo Amado v Bestuur van                           persons and to members of their families moving within the
                de Sociale Verzekeringsbank (1)                                 Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
                                                                                (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, as amended by Council
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of 30 April 1992, and
(Article 41 of the EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement —                          Regulation No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968
Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Social security                      on freedom of movement for workers within the Community,
— Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 Articles 48                          may be interpreted as meaning that they prevent a Member
and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 39                      State from gradually abolishing an allowance for dependent
EC and 43 EC) — Freedom of movement for persons — Non-                          children aged between 18 and 27 years pursuing studies
discrimination — Recipients of an invalidity pension no                         provided that, as in the case of the legislation at issue in the
longer residing in the competent Member State — Amend-                          main proceeding, its abolition does not involve discrimination
           ment of the legislation on study finance)                            bases on nationality.
                          (2001/C 200/02)                                  2.   A person entitled to a pension payable under the legislation of
                                                                                a single Member State and residing on the territory of another
                                                                                Member State cannot rely on either Article 3(1) of Regulation
                                                                                No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                               No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 1274/92, or
                                                                                any other provision of that regulation in order to obtain from
                                                                                the Member State under whose legislation he receives his
                                                                                pension study finance such as that introduced by the Wet op de
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          studiefinanciering (Law on study finance).
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           3.   A national of a Member State who has exercised the right to
In Case C-33/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                    freedom of movement for workers guaranteed by Article 48 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arrondissements-                    the Treaty and has ceased to exercise his occupational activity
rechtbank te Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam) (Nether-                     in the host Member State and returned to his Member State of
lands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                      origin, in which his children also reside, cannot rely on
before that court between Hassan Fahmi, M. Esmoris Cerdeiro-                    Article 48 or on Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 in
Pinedo Amado and Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank                        order to obtain from the Member State in which he was
— on the interpretation of Article 41 of the Cooperation                        employed a right to have his children’s studies financed in the
Agreement between the European Economic Community and                           same conditions as those applied by that State to its own
the Kingdom of Morocco signed at Rabat on 27 April 1976                         nationals.
and approved on behalf of the Community by Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978 (OJ
1978 L 264, p. 1), Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC)                   4.   Article 41 of the EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement must
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social                         be interpreted as meaning that where the dependent children of
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                          a Moroccan worker do not reside in the Community, neither the
persons and to members of their families moving within the                      Moroccan worker concerned nor his children can rely, in regard
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation                         to study finance such as that introduced by the Wet op de
(EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6), as                       studiefinanciering, on the principle of the prohibition of
amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of 30 April                      discrimination on the basis of nationality laid down in that
1992 (OJ L 1992 L 136, p. 1), Article 7 of Regulation (EEC)                     provision in relation to social security.
No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom
of movement for workers within the Community (Official
Journal, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), and
Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Articles 39 EC and 43 EC) — the Court, composed of:                        (1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.
G.C.I Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola
(Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of
Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón,
R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 20 March 2001, in which it has
ruled:


title: Case C-213/08: Action brought on 21 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/13

         Action brought on 21 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-213/08)
   (2008/C 197/21)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (1), and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of Directive 2006/100/EC into national law expired on 1 January 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 363, 20.12.2006, p. 141.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 22 January 2002 in Case C-218/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Vicenza): Cisal di Battistello Venanzio & C. Sas v Istituto nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL) (Articles 85, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC) — Compulsory affiliation to a body providing insurance against accidents at work — Whether such a body is to be treated as an undertaking)

text:
C 84/26                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
1.    The Commission of the European Communities was competent,              the application brought before that court by Lutz GmbH and
      under Article 149(1) of the Act concerning the conditions of           others on the validity of Article 2(1)(f) of First Council Directive
      accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland          68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards
      and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties          which, for the protection of the interests of members and
      on which the European Union is founded, to adopt the measures          others, are required by Member States of companies within the
      provided for in Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC)                meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty,
      No 3108/94 of 19 December 1994 on transitional measures                with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout
      to be adopted on account of the accession of Austria, Finland          the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 41)
      and Sweden in respect of trade in agricultural products.               and Article 47 of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of
                                                                             25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the
2.    Examination of the second question has disclosed no factor of          annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222,
      such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 4 of Regulation       p. 11),the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,
      No 3108/94 in the light of the principle of proportionality            President of the Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rappor-
      and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.        teur), Judges, Advocate General: L.A. Geelhoed, Registrar:
                                                                             H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on
3.    The term ‘holder’ of surplus stock, within the meaning of              15 January 2002, in which it has ruled:
      Article 4 of Regulation No 3108/94, refers to a person who
      has authority to place the stored products on the market and
      thereby realise a profit.                                              The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction
                                                                             to answer the questions submitted by the Landesgericht Wels in its
4.    Article 4(3) of Regulation No 3108/94 must be interpreted as           decision of 9 May 2000.
      meaning that, in the case of imports of Tunisian olive oil, the
      ‘import charge’ applicable in the Community of Twelve on
      31 December 1994 is the one provided for in Annex I to                 (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
      Commission Regulation (EC) No 3307/94 of 29 December
      1994 fixing the minimum levies on the importation of olive oil
      and levies on the importation of other olive oil sector products.
5.    Examination of the fifth question has disclosed no factor of
      such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 4(3) of Regulation
      No 3108/94 in the light of the principle of equal treatment.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                22 January 2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             in Case C-218/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Tribunale di Vicenza): Cisal di Battistello Venanzio &
                           (First Chamber)                                   C. Sas v Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione contro gli
                                                                                infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL)(1)
                          15 January 2002
                                                                             (Articles 85, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81
in Case C-182/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    EC, 82 EC and 86 EC) — Compulsory affiliation to a body
    the Landesgericht Wels): Lutz GmbH and Others (1)                        providing insurance against accidents at work — Whether
                                                                                such a body is to be treated as an undertaking)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Disclosure of annual
accounts and annual report — Maintenance of a register of
        companies — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)                                                  (2002/C 84/42)
                            (2002/C 84/41)                                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (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-218/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
In Case C-182/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                EC by the Tribunale di Vicenza (Italy) for a preliminary ruling
by the Landesgericht Wels (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in              in the proceedings pending before that court between Cisal di
 ---pagebreak--- 6.4.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 84/27
Battistello Venanzio & C. Sas and Istituto nazionale per                   L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL), on the            No 1734/96 of 9 September 1996 (OJ 1996 L 238, p. 1), the
interpretation of Articles 85, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now             Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting
Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC),the Court (Fifth Chamber),                for the President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola and
composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the Fourth Chamber,                 C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General:
acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward,              J. Mischo, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on
A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmer-                 7 February 2002, in which it has ruled:
mans, Judges, Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs, Registrar: H. von
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 January
2002, in which it has ruled:                                               Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987
                                                                           on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common
                                                                           Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
The concept of an undertaking, within the meaning of Articles 85           No 1734/96 of 9 September 1996, must be interpreted as meaning
and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC), does not           that an ink-cartridge without integrated print head, consisting of
cover a body which is entrusted by law with the management of a            plastic casing, foam, a metal screen, seals, tape seal, labels, ink and
scheme providing insurance against accidents at work and occu-             packing material, which, as regards both the cartridge and the ink,
pational diseases, such as the Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione      can only be used in a printer with the same characteristics as ink-jet
contro gli infortuni sul lavori (INAIL).                                   Epson Stylus Colour printers, is to be classified under sub-heading
                                                                           No 3215 90 80 of the Combined Nomenclature.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           7 February 2002
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
in Case C-276/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): Turbon Inter-
     national GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz (1)                                                 7 February 2002
(Common customs tariff — Tariff headings — Classification                  in Case C-328/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
in the Combined Nomenclature of ink-cartridges compatible                  the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Regensburg): Maria
with Epson Stylus Colour printers — Inks (heading 3215)                           Weber and Martin Weber v Freistaat Bayern (1)
— Parts and accessories of machines under heading 8471
                           (heading 8473))
                                                                           (Common agricultural policy — Support system for oil-seeds
                            (2002/C 84/43)                                           — Validity of Regulation (EEC) No 525/93)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                                     (2002/C 84/44)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                        (Language of the case: German)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-276/00: Reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hessisches
Finanzgericht, Kassel (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Turbon
International GmbH, acting in its capacity as successor to                 In Case C-328/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Kores Nordic Deutschland GmbH, and Oberfinanzdirektion                     EC by the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Regensburg (Germ-
Koblenz, on the interpretation of headings 3215 and 8473 of                any) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation                 that court between Maria Weber, Martin Weber and Freistaat
(EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical             Bayern, on the validity of Commission Regulation (EEC)
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987                     No 525/93 of 8 March 1993 establishing the value of the final


title: Case T-64/08: Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2010 — Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche v Commission (State aid — Compensation for expropriation on grounds of public interest — Temporal extension of a preferential tariff for the supply of electricity — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Concept of advantage — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Aid measure put into effect)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2010 — Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche v Commission
   (Case T-64/08) (1)

   (State aid - Compensation for expropriation on grounds of public interest - Temporal extension of a preferential tariff for the supply of electricity - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Concept of advantage - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Aid measure put into effect)
   2010/C 221/60
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Salonico, G. Pellegrino, G. Pellegrino and G. Barone, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and G. Conte, agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/408/EC of 20 November 2007 on the State aid C 36/A/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy in favour of ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche (OJ 2008 L 144, p. 37)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Order Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Action brought on 5 February 1999 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Council of the European Union (Case C-27/99)

text:
C 86/12               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 27.3.1999
to adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives            by the Commission of the European Communities,
addressed to them into their domestic law before the               represented by Mr Richard B. Wainwright, Principal Legal
expiry of the period prescribed for so doing. That period,         Adviser, and Mr Michael Shotter, a national official
which is laid down in Article 2(1) of Directive 95/30/EC,          seconded to the Commission under an arrangement for the
expired on 30 November 1996 without the Grand Duchy                exchange of officials, acting as agents, with an address for
of Luxembourg having brought into force the necessary              service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la
provisions.                                                        Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the Commission,
                                                                   Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
(1) OJ L 155, 6.7.1995, p. 41.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð declare that:
Action brought on 5 February 1999 by the Kingdom of
     Spain against the Council of the European Union                   1. by prohibiting the marketing in Ireland, with the
                                                                           description and indication of fineness which they
                        (Case C-27/99)                                     bear in their country of origin, of articles made
                        (1999/C 86/23)                                     from precious metals (gold, silver or platinum)
                                                                           lawfully manufactured and marketed in other
                                                                           Member States but not complying with the Irish
                                                                           provisions concerning standards of fineness, or by
An action against the Council of the European Union was                    obliging these imports to replace their hallmarks
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                        with those for the appropriate lower official Irish
Communities on 5 February 1999 by the Kingdom of                           standard of fineness;
Spain, represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish
Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.                               2. by requiring articles made from precious metals
                                                                           (gold, silver or platinum) imported from another
                                                                           Member State, and marketed in Ireland, to bear a
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                sponsor's mark indicative of the maker, worker or
                                                                           dealer in such articles, registered by the Company
                                                                           which appoints the Assay Master by which these
Ð annul the element concerning anchovy in Annex I to                       articles are intended to be struck with the
    Council Regulation (EC) No 48/99 (1) of 18 December                    approved hallmark, when these articles already
    1998 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish                bear a sponsor's mark conforming to the
    stocks, the total allowable catches for 1999 and                       legislation of the Member State of origin;
    certain conditions under which they may be fished;
                                                                       3. by requiring articles made from precious metals
Ð order the defendant institution to pay the costs.                        (gold, silver or platinum) imported from another
                                                                           Member State, and marketed in Ireland, which
                                                                           have been lawfully struck in another Member State
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to                       with a hallmark stamped by a body which offers
those in Case C-179/95 (2).                                                guarantees of independence, and which offers
                                                                           appropriate information to consumers, to bear an
                                                                           approved hallmark struck by the Assay Master
(1) OJ L 13, 18.1.1999, p. 1.                                              which is appointed by the Wardens and
(2) OJ C 208, 12.8.1995, p. 10.                                            Commonalty of Goldsmiths of the city of Dublin;
                                                                       4. by establishing differences between approved
                                                                           hallmarks struck on articles manufactured in
                                                                           Ireland and those hallmarks of the same type
                                                                           struck on articles imported from other Member
Action brought on 5 February 1999 by the Commission of                     States,
         the European Communities against Ireland
                        (Case C-30/99)
                                                                       Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligation under
                        (1999/C 86/24)                                 Article 30 of the Treaty establishing the European
                                                                       Community;
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 5 February 1999             Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 1998 in Case C-159/96: Portuguese Republic v. Commission of the European Communities (Commercial policy - Quantitative limits on imports of textil products - Products originating in the People's Republic of China - Additional imports - Commission's powers of implementation) (1999/C 1/05)

text:
4.1.1999             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 1/3
     on a time-limit under national law even if that                 3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities
     Member State has not yet amended its national rules                  to bear its own costs.
     in order to render them compatible with those
     provisions.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 351, 10.12.1994.
(1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 19 November 1998
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                     in Case C-159/96: Portuguese Republic v. Commission of
                    of 19 November 1998                                               the European Communities (1)
in Case C-284/94: Kingdom of Spain v. Council of the                 (Commercial policy Ð Quantitative limits on imports of
European Union supported by Commission of the                        textil products Ð Products originating in the People's
                  European Communities (1)                           Republic of China Ð Additional imports Ð Commission's
                                                                                powers of implementation)
(Action for annulment Ð Common commercial policy Ð
Regulations (EC) No 519/94 and (EC) No 1921/94 Ð                                              (1999/C 1/05)
Import quotas for certain toys from the People's Republic
                           of China)
                         (1999/C 1/04)                                              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     In Case C-159/96: Portuguese Republic (Agents: Luís
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     Fernandes and Maria Luísa Durante) v. Commission of
                                                                     the European Communities (Agents: Marc de Pauw and
                                                                     Francisco de Sousa Fialho) Ð application for annulment
                                                                     of the Commission's practice of applying exceptional
In Case C-284/94: Kingdom of Spain (Agents: Alberto                  flexibility' measures in the administration of quantitative
Navarro GonzaÂlez and Gloria Calvo DiaÂz) v. Council of              limits on importation into the European Community of
the European Union (Agents: Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen, Guus                textile products and clothing from non-member countries
Houttuin and Diego Canga Fano), supported by                         and, specifically, of the decision adopted by the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                      Commission following the meeting of the Textile
Miguel Díaz-Llanos, Patrick Hetsch and Carlos Gómez de               Committee of 6 March 1996 concerning textile products
la Cruz Ð Application for the annulment of Council                   originating from the People's Republic of China Ð the
Regulation (EC) No 1921/94 of 25 July 1994 amending                  Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn
Regulation (EC) No 519/94 on common rules for imports                (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F.
from certain third countries (OJ L 198, 30.7.1994, p. 1)             Mancini, H. Ragnemalm and K. M. Ioannou, Judges;
Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of P. J. G.                    A. Saggio, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini                     Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
(Rapporteur) and J. L. Murray, Judges; P. LeÂger,                    19 November 1998, in which it:
Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
given a judgment on 19 November 1998, in which it:
                                                                     1. Declares the action inadmissible as regards the claim
                                                                          for annulment of the practice of exceptional
1. Dismisses the application;                                             flexibility' measures followed by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities in the administration of
                                                                          quantitative limits on the importation into the
                                                                          Community of textile products and clothing
2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;                          originating in non-member countries;
 ---pagebreak--- C 1/4                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.1.1999
2. Annuls the decision adopted by the Commission                     1. Articles 4 and 10 of the Sixth Council Directive
     following the favourable opinion of the Textile                      77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of
     Committee, which met on 6 March 1996, concerning                     the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
     the importation of textile products and clothing                     taxes do not preclude a national practice which, in the
     originating in the People's Republic of China;                       case of transactions subject to VAT effected by a
                                                                          company before it was registered for VAT, consists in
                                                                          fixing the starting-point of the limitation period for
                                                                          the recovery of that tax at the 20th of the month
3. Declares that the effects of the annulled decision are                 following the quarter in which that registration took
     to be maintained in force;                                           place.
4. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                           2. The First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April
                                                                          1967 and the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
                                                                          17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.                                                  Member States relating to turnover taxes preclude the
                                                                          VAT on a benefit granted by an employer to his
                                                                          employee in the form of the placing of a vehicle at his
                                                                          disposal for private use from being calculated by
                                                                          including in the taxable amount the VAT paid by the
                                                                          employer in another Member State on the renting of
                                                                          that vehicle, whereas, if the vehicle had been rented in
                                                                          the Member State in question, the taxable amount
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      would not have included the VAT paid.
                      (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
                    of 19 November 1998
in Case C-85/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de PremieÁre Instance de LieÁge (Belgium)):
SocieÂteÂ FinancieÁre d'Investissements SPRL (SFI) and
                        Belgian State (1)
(VAT Ð Limitation period Ð Starting-point Ð Method of
                          calculation)                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                         (1999/C 1/06)
                                                                                of 19 November 1998
                                                                     in Case C-162/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                (Language of the case: French)                       the Helsingborgs Tingsrätt): Criminal proceedings before
                                                                     that court against Gunnar Nilsson, Per Olov Hagelgren,
                                                                                Solweig Arrborn (1)
                                                                     (Free movement of goods Ð Prohibition of quantitative
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       restrictions and measures having equivalent effect between
          published in the European Court Reports)                   Member States Ð Derogations Ð Protection of the life
                                                                     and health of animals Ð Improvement of livestock Ð
                                                                     Breeding of pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine
                                                                                species Ð Artificial insemination)
In Case C-85/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de PremieÁre Instance de                                     (1999/C 1/07)
LieÁge (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between SocieÂteÂ FinancieÁre
d'Investissements SPRL (SFI) and Belgian State on the
interpretation of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC                            (Language of the case: Swedish)
of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
(OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1) and Article 95 of the EC                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Treaty Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J. L.                        published in the European Court Reports)
Murray (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the
Chamber, H. Ragnemalm and K. M. Ioannou, Judges;
J. Mischo, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on                     In Case C-162/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
19 November 1998, in which it has ruled:                             of the EC Treaty by the Helsingborgs Tingsrätt (Sweden)


title: Case T-367/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  30 March 2006  — Yedaş Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret v Council and Commission (Action for damages — International agreements — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Customs Union between the European Community and Turkey — Compensatory financial aid)

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/11

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 March 2006 — Yedaş Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret v Council and Commission
   (Case T-367/03) (1)

   (Action for damages - International agreements - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Customs Union between the European Community and Turkey - Compensatory financial aid)
   (2006/C 121/19)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Yedaş Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Ümraniye, Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: R. Sinner, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and D. Canga Fano, Agents) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Boudot and X. Lewis, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for compensation for damage allegedly caused by the implementation of the procedures of the Customs Union instituted by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey and its Additional Protocols and Decision 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the Customs Union (OJ 1996 L 35, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59 of 6.3.2004.


title: Case T-772/15: Action brought on 29 December 2015 — Quanta Storage v Commission

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/49

         Action brought on 29 December 2015 — Quanta Storage v Commission
   (Case T-772/15)
   (2016/C 098/64)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Quanta Storage, Inc. (Taoyuan City, Taiwan) (represented by: B. Hartnett, Barrister, O. Geiss, lawyer, and W. Sparks, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 21 October 2015 in Case AT.39639 — Optical Disk Drives, relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement, in so far as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the applicant’s rights of defence, the duty to state reasons and the right to good administration.

                           —

                           The contested decision is based on a finding of infringements that had not been put to the applicant in the administrative procedure.

                           —

                           The contested decision is based on assumptions regarding transparency in the market which the Commission has failed to investigate fully.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the discrepancy between the operative part of the contested decision and the Commission’s reasoning as regards the duration of the infringement in relation to Hewlett Packard results in a manifest error in law and breaches the duty to state reasons.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to prove and provide adequate reasoning that the applicant participated in a single and continuous infringement.

                           —

                           The applicant did not participate in the infringement alleged between 14 February 2008 and 9 April 2008.

                           —

                           The applicant did not participate in the infringement alleged between 10 April 2008 and 27 October 2008.

                           —

                           The applicant did not participate in an infringement on 28 October 2008.

                           —

                           There is insufficient evidence to show that the applicant was aware either of the cartel’s overall plan or of its general scope and essential characteristics.

                           —

                           Legal consequences of the Commission’s failure to prove the infringement alleged.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to establish, to the requisite legal and evidential standard, that it had jurisdiction to apply Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of fact and law in calculating the amount of the fine, and breached the duty to state its reasons.

                           —

                           The Commission erred in fact and in law when calculating the basic amount, and failed to state its reasons.

                           —

                           The Commission failed to use the best available figures on the value of the applicant’s sales.

                           —

                           The Commission violated the principle of equal treatment when calculating the basic amount.

                           —

                           The Commission committed errors of assessment in considering gravity and mitigating circumstances.


title: Case C-577/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — DKV Belgium v Association belge des consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL (Freedom to provide services — Freedom of establishment — Directives 73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC — Direct insurance other than life assurance — Freedom to set rates — Health insurance contracts not linked to professional activity — Restrictions — Overriding reasons in the public interest)

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — DKV Belgium v Association belge des consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL
   (Case C-577/11) (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Freedom of establishment - Directives 73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC - Direct insurance other than life assurance - Freedom to set rates - Health insurance contracts not linked to professional activity - Restrictions - Overriding reasons in the public interest)
   2013/C 123/07
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: DKV Belgium SA

      Defendant: Association belge des consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Article 49 and 56 TFEU, of the second paragraph of Article 29 and Article 39(3) of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Third Non-life Insurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1) and of Article 8(3) of Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance (OJ 1973 L 228, p. 3) — National legislation providing, with regard to health insurance contracts not linked to professional activity, provisions under which the premium, the excess payable and the benefit can be adapted, on the annual date of the premium, only on the basis of specific criteria — System of prior approval of rates — Restriction on the principles of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services — Overriding reasons in the general interest

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 29 and 39(2) and (3) of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Third Non-life Insurance Directive) and Article 8(3) of First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance, as amended by Directive 92/49, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides, with regard to health insurance contracts not linked to professional activity, provisions under which the premium, the excess payable and the benefit can be adapted annually only:

               —

               on the basis of the consumer price index, or

               —

               on the basis of a so-called ‘medical index’, if and in so far as the changes in that index exceed that in the consumer price index, or

               —

               after obtaining authorisation from an administrative authority responsible for the supervision of insurance undertakings, at the request of the insurance undertaking concerned, where that authority finds that the application of the premium rate of that undertaking, notwithstanding the adaptations calculated on the basis of those two types of indices, gives rise to, or is likely to give rise to losses.

         Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding such legislation, provided that there are no less restrictive measures which might be used to achieve, under the same conditions, the objective of protecting consumers against sharp, unexpected increases in insurance premium rates, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Action brought on 27 June 1996 by Franz Eppe against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-99/96)

text:
No C 269/24           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14 . 9 . 96
Action brought on 27 June 1996 by Franz Eppe against the             newly-created post, contrary to Articles 5 , 7, 25 , 29 and 45
        Commission of the European Communities                       of the Staff Regulations and Annex I thereto . The procedure
                        ( Case T-99/96 )                             adopted shows that the appointment decision in question
                                                                     was taken by reference to his identity and his personal file,
                          ( 96/C 269/56 )
                                                                     contrary to the principle that the appointing authority is
                                                                     under a duty to fix the level of a post as adviser or Head of
                (Language of the case: French)                       Unit by reference to its importance, independently of the
                                                                     qualifications, identity and personal file of the candidate to
                                                                     be appointed . The adviser's post in question was never the
An action against the Commission of the European                     subject of a prior, independent and objective decision as to
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    its level .
Instance of the European Communities on 27 June 1996 by
Franz Eppe , residing at Tervueren ( Belgium ), represented by
Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service      The applicant also maintains that there has been a disregard
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du             of the criteria laid down by the Court of First Instance in
Fort Rheinsheim .                                                    Case T- 10/94 Kratz v. Commission [ 1995 ] ECR-SC
                                                                     I-A-103 , concerning the Commission decision of 19 July
                                                                     1988 amending the procedure for filling middle
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         management posts, and infringement also of the duty to
                                                                     have due regard for the interests of officials and the
— annul the Commission 's implied decision rejecting the             principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and
                                                                     non-discrimination .
    applicant's request of 31 July 1995 under Article 90 of
    the Staff Regulations for objective re-examination by the
    Advisory Committee on Appointments and by the                    The Commission gave no justification for holding that his
    Commission as appointing authority of the level of his           request for objective re-examination of the level of the post
    post as adviser to the EAGGF,                                    could not be entertained, given that that question was not
                                                                     dealt with before the Community judicature in Joined Cases
— annul       the   Commission 's      express    decision   of      T-59/91 and T-79/91 , which concerned the alteration of the
    16 November 1995 ( note from Mr Franz De Koster ),               organization plan of DG VI, appointing the applicant to the
    rejecting the applicant's request of 31 July 1995 under          post of adviser while rejecting his candidature for his former
    Article 90 of the Staff Regulations for the Commission 's        post as Head of Unit. Nor, the applicant argues, has the
    assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations in an       Commission denied that the manner in which the level of the
    action for damages ,                                             post to be filled was fixed was unlawful , or that it would
                                                                     normally be filled at Grade A 3 .
— annul the Commission 's express decision of 29 March
    1996 , notified to the applicant on 3 April 1996 ,               The applicant also challenges the Commission 's refusal to
    rejecting his complaint lodged on 1 December 1995 ,              assist him, in accordance with Article 24 of the Staff
    No R.9 17/95 , against the implied decision referred to          Regulations, in the proceedings he intends to take against
    above , rejecting his request under Article 90 of the Staff      his former legal adviser for the negligent way in which the
    Regulations for objective re-examination of the level of         latter defended his interests before the Court of First
    his post,                                                        Instance .
— annul the Commission 's express decision of 29 March
     1996 , notified to the applicant on 3 April 1996 ,
    rejecting his complaint lodged on 1 December 1995 ,
    No R.9 17/95 , concerning the rejection of his request for
    assistance in an action for damages,
— declare the Commission liable to pay compensation ,                Action brought on 8 July 1996 by Pharos SA against the
                                                                               Commission of the European Communities
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                                    Case T-105 /96
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/57 )
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 The applicant, a former Grade A 4 Head of Unit in DG IV,
 challenges the Commission's refusal to reconsider the
 conditions of his appointment as adviser to the EAGGF,               An action against the Commission of the European
 which took place on 1 November 1990 without promotion                Communities was brought before the Court of First
 to Grade A 3 .
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 1996 by
                                                                      Pharos SA, whose registered office is at Seraing ( Belgium ),
 It is clear, in his submission , that the Commission                 represented by Alexandre Vandencasteele , of the Brussels
 automatically aligned the post of adviser to the EAGGF at            Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 Grade A 4 , without first objectively deciding its level as a        Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt .


21.2.2004              EN                  Official Journal of the European Union                                     C 47/27
       Removal from the register of Case C-126/02 (1)              from the register of Case C-80/03: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
                         (2004/C 47/48)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 83, 5.4.2003.
By order of 23 October 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-126/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-108/03 (1)
(1) OJ C 144, 15.6.2002.
                                                                                (2004/C 47/52)
                                                                   By order of 10 September 2003 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case C-35/03 (1)               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-108/03: Commission of the
                         (2004/C 47/49)                            European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 112, 10.5.2003.
By order of 6 November 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-35/03: Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-142/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/53)
       Removal from the register of Case C-57/03 (1)               By order of 11 November 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                         (2004/C 47/50)                            from the register of Case C-142/03: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Court of          (1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-57/03: Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 83, 5.4.2003.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-218/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/54)
       Removal from the register of Case C-80/03 (1)
                                                                   By order of 10 September 2003 the President of the Court of
                         (2004/C 47/51)                            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-218/03: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal            (1) OJ C 158, 5.7.2003.


title: Case C-66/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment — Consent given without an assessment)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-66/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment - Consent given without an assessment)
   (2009/C 6/02)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Simonetti and X. Lewis, acting as Agents, F. Louis, avocat, and C. O'Daly, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, acting as Agent, J. Connolly SC and G. Simons BL)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: E. Ośniecka-Tamecka, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2(2) and 4(2) to (4) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) — Consent given without an assessment
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not adopting, in conformity with Articles 2(1) and 4(2) to (4) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, all measures to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment that belong to the categories of projects covered by point 1(a) to (c) and (f) of Annex II to that directive are made subject to a requirement for development consent and to an assessment with regard to their environmental effects in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the directive, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs of the Commission of the European Communities;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


title: Case C-354/02: Action brought on 2 October 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
7.12.2002                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 305/11
zum Arbeitnehmer-Entsendegesetz’ (notes on the Law concern-              The applicant claims that the Court should:
ing the posting of employees abroad), in the still unchanged
version thereof, is provided to employers and forms the basis
of administrative controls by the competent authorities.                 1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                               and administrative provisions necessary to implement
                                                                               Commission Directive 2000/42/EC of 22 June 2000 (1)
Responding in detail to arguments put forward by the German                    amending the Annexes to Council Directives 86/362/
Government, the Commission maintains in particular that:                       EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC on the fixing of
                                                                               maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and
—     the power conferred on Member States, in accordance                      vegetables and certain products of plant origin, including
      with the second paragraph of Article 3(1) of Directive                   fruit and vegetables respectively, or in failing to notify the
      96/71/EC, to define the concept of ‘minimum pay’                         Commission of their adoption, or in failing to notify the
      does not also include competence to determine the                        Commission of their adoption, the Republic of Austria
      methodology to be followed in carrying out the compara-                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      tive examination;
                                                                         2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
—     although determination of the criterion of ‘accrual’ may
      be relevant for the purposes of defining the concept of
      ‘minimum pay’, the problem of wage elements the accrual
      of which is deferred (e.g. the 13th month’s salary,
      Christmas bonuses) cannot — as provided for in the
      ‘Merkblatt’ — be resolved by simply leaving such matters           Pleas in law and principle arguments
      out of account;
—     control problems arising in connection with such wage              The obligation of the Member States to implement the
      elements are to be resolved bilaterally between the                directives (Article 249(3) EC) includes an obligation to comply
      Member States concerned, and may not lead to a                     with the time-limits laid down in the directives. In the present
      restriction of freedom to provide services;                        case that time-limit expired on 28.02.2001, by which time the
                                                                         Republic of Austria had not adopted the necessary measures.
—     a Member State which has not included supplementary
      holiday pay as part of the minimum pay defined by
      it may not compensate for that ‘lacuna’ by treating
      contributions actually paid to an institution in the               (1 ) OJ 2000 L 158, p. 51.
      Member State where the employer is established which is
      comparable to a German holiday fund as an allowance
      which must be left out of account.
( 1) OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1.
                                                                         Action brought on 2 October 2002 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Austria
Action brought on 2 October 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                              Austria                                                              (Case C-354/02)
                          (Case C-353/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 305/18)
                          (2002/C 305/17)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                    An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                  before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 2 October 2002 by the Commission of the European                      on 2 October 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Gerald Braun, of its legal service,          Communities, presented by Gerald Braun, of its legal service,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            acting as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the legal service, Wagner        the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the legal service, Wagner
Centre C 254, Luxembourg-Kirchberg.                                      Centre C 254, Luxembourg-Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 305/12                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.12.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and
                                                                                vegetables and certain products of plant origin, including
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                    fruit and vegetables respectively, or in failing to notify the
      and administrative provisions necessary to implement                       Commission of their adoption, the Republic of Austria
      Commission Directive 2000/57/EC of 22 September                            has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      2000 ( 1) amending the Annexes to Council Directive 76/
      895/EEC and 90/642/EEC on the fixing of maximum                     2.     Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
      levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and vegetables
      and certain products of plant origin, including fruit and
      vegetables respectively, the Republic of Austria has failed
      to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                          Pleas in law and principle arguments
2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                          The obligation of the Member States to implement the
                                                                          directives (Article 249(3) EC) includes an obligation to comply
                                                                          with the time-limits laid down in the directives. In the present
Pleas in law and principle arguments
                                                                          case that time-limit expired on 31.03.2001, by which time the
                                                                          Republic of Austria had not adopted the necessary measures.
The obligation of the Member States do implement the
directives (Article 249(3) EC) includes an obligation to comply
                                                                          (1 ) OJ 2000 L 244, p. 78.
with the time-limits laid down in the directives. In the present
case that time-limit expired on 31 March 2001, by which time
the Republic of Austria had not adopted the necessary
measures.
( 1) OJ 2000 L 244, p. 76.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the tribunal du
                                                                          travail de Bruxelles by judgment of that Court of 24 Sep-
                                                                          tember 2002 in the case of Yamina Haddad against Belgian
                                                                                State
Action brought on 3 October 2002 by the Commission                                                   (Case C-358/02)
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                               Austria
                                                                                (2002/C 305/20)
                           (Case C-355/02)
                           (2002/C 305/19)                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the tribunal du travail
                                                                          de Bruxelles (Labour Court, Brussels) of 24 September 2002,
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 7 October 2002, for a
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                     preliminary ruling in the case of Yamina Haddad against
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                   Belgian State on the following question:
on 3 October 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Gerald Braun, of its legal service,           Must Article 41(1) of the Cooperation Agreement signed on
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             27 April 1976 between the Member States of the European
the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the legal service, Wagner         Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco, as
Centre C 254, Luxembourg-Kirchberg.                                       approved on behalf of the Community by Regulation No 2211/
                                                                          78 of 26 September 1978 (1), be interpreted, inter alia in the
                                                                          light of Article 14 of the European Convention for the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
                                                                          signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and Article 1 of Protocol
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations             No 1 thereto of 20 March 1952, as precluding a Member State
      and administrative provisions necessary to implement                from refusing to grant a benefit such as a disability allowance,
      Commission Directive 2000/58/EC of 22 September                     as provided under its laws in favour of its nationals and
      2000 ( 1) amending the Annexes to Council Directive 86/             citizens of the European Union, to a Moroccan national who
      362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC on the fixing of                 is a student and the wife of an unemployed Moroccan national,


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2005 in Case T-157/04 Joël De Bry v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Career development report — Appraisal exercise 2001/2002)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 12 July 2005
   in Case T-157/04 Joël De Bry v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Career development report - Appraisal exercise 2001/2002)
   (2005/C 229/32)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-157/04: Joël De Bry, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Woluwé-Saint-Lambert (Belgium), represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Lozano Palacios and H. Kraemer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the decision of 26 May 2003 establishing the applicant's career development report for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002, the Court of First Instance (Single Judge: M. Pirrung); I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has delivered a judgment on 12 July 2005 in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 26 May 2003 establishing the applicant's career development report for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 168 of 26.6.2004.