title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 December 2001 in Case C-317/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrĳfsleven): Kloosterboer Rotterdam BV v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserĳ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Additional duties on importation — Validity of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1484/95)

text:
16.2.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 44/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 December
                                                                             2001, in which it has ruled:
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                             Paragraphs (1) and (3) of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1484/95
                                                                             of 28 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for implementing the
                      of 13 December 2001                                    system of additional import duties and fixing additional import
                                                                             duties in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and
in Case C-317/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling                         repealing Regulation No 163/67/EC, are invalid, inasmuch as they
from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven):                         provide that the additional duty referred to therein is, as a general
Kloosterboer Rotterdam BV v Minister van Landbouw,                           rule, established on the basis of the representative price laid down in
                  Natuurbeheer en Visserij (1)                               Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1484/95 and that the duty is
                                                                             established on the basis of the cif import price of the shipment
                                                                             concerned only if the importer so requests.
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Additional duties on
importation — Validity of Article 3 of Regulation (EC)
                            No 1484/95)                                      (1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                          (2002/C 44/01)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                              of 13 December 2001
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             in Case C-324/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): DaimlerChrysler AG v
                                                                                Land Baden-Württemberg (1)
In Case C-317/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven                        (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on
(Administrative Court for Trade and Industry) (Netherlands)                  shipments of waste — Conditions justifying prohibitions or
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that              restrictions on the export of waste — National legislation
court between Kloosterboer Rotterdam BV and Minister van                     imposing the obligation to offer waste to an approved body)
Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij — on the validity of
Article 3(1) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EC)                                                      (2002/C 44/02)
No 1484/95 of 28 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for
implementing the system of additional import duties and                                          (Language of the case: German)
fixing additional import duties in the poultrymeat and egg
sectors and for egg albumin, and repealing Regulation                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
No 163/67/EEC (OJ 1995 L 145, p. 47) and on the interpret-                                       in the European Court Reports)
ation of that provision and of Articles 65 and 220(2)(b) of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302,                      In Case C-324/99: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric,                 by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) for a preliminary
President of the Second Chamber, acting for the President of                 ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris                      DaimlerChrysler AG and Land Baden-Württemberg, on the
(Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo                interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of
Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-                     1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments


title: Case T-74/15: Action brought on 17 February 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki/Commission

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/25

         Action brought on 17 February 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki/Commission
   (Case T-74/15)
   (2015/C 171/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: I. Ampazis and M. Sfyri, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission (ESTAT/G0/MHF/Gl/MH/nf D (2014) of 8 December 2014), notified to the applicants as an attachment to Customer Additional Information Form DESIS III-000455-6000494078-REQ-O1-CINF-03 of 9 December 2014, which rejected their offer in relation to the Request for services No DESIS III-000455-6000494078-REQ-01 within the context of framework contract ESP DESIS III Lot no 4,

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission, notified to the applicants as an attachment to Customer Additional Information Form DESIS 111-000485-6000494078- REQ-01-CINF-02 of 12 December 2014, which rejected their offer in relation to the Request for Services No DESIS III-000485-6000494078-REQ-0l, within the context of framework contract ESP-DESIS III Lot no 4,

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicants’ damages suffered for the loss of opportunity in the case of DESIS ill-000485-6000494078-REQ-OI-CINF-02, for an amount of 12  000,00 euros, plus interest,

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicants’ legal fees and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.
   Firstly, the applicants argue that the Commission infringed the obligation to state reason within the evaluation of their offers in DESIS III-000455-6000494078-REQ-01 and DESIS III-000485-6000494078-REQ-01.
   Secondly, the applicants argue that the Commission committed several manifest errors of assessment within the evaluation of their offer in DESIS 111-000485-6000494078-REQ-01.


title: Case T-11/00: Action brought on 18 January 2000 by Michel Hautem against the European Investment Bank

text:
C 79/40               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.3.2000
    identifies the sudden, violent or abnormal event extraneous          31 January 1997 removing him from his post and ordered the
    to the applicant’s body, namely infection with the HIV               EIB to pay arrears of his remuneration which he should have
    virus in 1995. The committee’s views on the evidence of              received since his dismissal. The EIB appealed that judgment
    the precise cause of the infection are beyond its com-               of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Justice but it
    petence since that is a legal issue.                                 did not consider it relevant to make an application for interim
                                                                         measures, as it could have done, seeking a stay of execution of
(b) Error of law as to the criteria applied to the accident. The         the judgment in question.
    medical committee and the administration took the view
    that the concept of an accident within the meaning of
    Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and Article 2 of the             The EIB did not however uphold any request for a stay of
    Rules required that the event should not be the result of a          execution of the judgment submitted to it by the applicant; it
    freely assumed risk or be unforeseeable, in other words,             moreover made it very clear in its appeal that it did not
    that there should not be any fault or intention associated           consider itself at all required to enforce the judgment of the
    therewith, even though the wording of Article 2 of the               Court of First Instance. The EIB therefore arrogated to itself a
    Rules defining the term accident contains no such con-               power which the law does not provide for, namely, that of
    ditions; they are, rather, included in Articles 4 and 7 on           deciding the appropriateness of complying with a judgment of
    the circumstances in which cover is excluded.                        the court without however taking account of other interests,
                                                                         in particular the harm suffered by the applicant.
(c) Manifest error of appraisal, in that all the conditions for an
    accident provided for in Article 2 of the Rules were met.
                                                                         The applicant argues that failure to comply with the judgment
                                                                         of the Court of First Instance constitutes, on the part of the
                                                                         EIB, a serious failure to fulfil its oblations and misuse of powers
                                                                         and that that conduct by the EIB is causing him extremely
                                                                         serious and irreversible non-material damage inasmuch as it is
                                                                         such as to cast doubts on his professional ability and standing.
Action brought on 18 January 2000 by Michel Hautem
            against the European Investment Bank
                         (Case T-11/00)
                         (2000/C 79/83)
                                                                         Action brought on 20 January 2000 by Serena Angioli
                                                                         and Others v Commission of the European Communities
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Case T-18/00)
An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                     (2000/C 79/84)
on 18 January 2000 by Michel Hautem, residing in Schouweil-
er (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) represented by Michel Karp
and Joëlle Choucroun, of the Luxembourg Bar, 84 Grand-Rue.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— order the Bank to pay him by way of reparation for                     ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    non-material damage caused by its failure to comply                  European Communities on 20 January 2000 by Serena Angi-
    with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                  oli, Claudia Delloye-Lemoine, Ann Perks, Geneviève Courtay
    28 September 1999 or, in the alternative, its refusal to             and Claude Gaspart, resident in Brussels, represented by Eric
    comply with it, the sum of EUR 20 000 or any other                   Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
    greater amount which this Court might deem equitable;                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
                                                                         Rheinsheim.
— order the Bank to pay the costs.
                                                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         — annul the decisions of Roger Fry, head of unit at DG IX,
                                                                              addressed to Ms Courtay 23 March, Ms Delloye on 18 May
The applicant points out that, in its judgment of 28 September                and the other applicants on 31 May 1999 terminating
1999 in Case T-140/97, the Court of First Instance annulled                   their contracts on 30 June 1999 and annulling the renewal
the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of                         date of each applicant’s contract, namely 30 June 1999;


title: Case C-683/13: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho da Covilhã — Portugal) — Pharmacontinente-Saúde e Higiene SA and Others v Autoridade Para As Condições do Trabalho (ACT) Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Article 2 — Concept of ‘personal data’  — Articles 6 and 7 — Principles relating to data quality and criteria for making data processing legitimate — Article 17 — Security of processing — Working time — Record of working time — Access by the national authority responsible for monitoring working conditions — Employer’s obligation to make available the record of working time so as to allow its immediate consultation

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/11

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho da Covilhã — Portugal) — Pharmacontinente-Saúde e Higiene SA and Others v Autoridade Para As Condições do Trabalho (ACT)
   (Case C-683/13) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 2 - Concept of ‘personal data’ - Articles 6 and 7 - Principles relating to data quality and criteria for making data processing legitimate - Article 17 - Security of processing - Working time - Record of working time - Access by the national authority responsible for monitoring working conditions - Employer’s obligation to make available the record of working time so as to allow its immediate consultation)
   2014/C 261/18
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal do Trabalho da Covilhã (Labour Court, Covilhã)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Pharmacontinente-Saúde e Higiene SA, Domingos Sequeira de Almeida, Luis Mesquita Soares Moutinho, Rui Teixeira Soares de Almeida, André de Carvalho e Sousa

      Defendant: Autoridade Para As Condições do Trabalho (ACT)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Article 2(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data is to be interpreted as meaning that a record of working time, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which indicates, in relation to each worker, the times when working hours begin and end, as well as the corresponding breaks and intervals, is covered by the concept of ‘personal data’ as referred to in that provision.

               2.

               Article 6(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(c) and (e) of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires an employer to make the record of working time available to the national authority responsible for monitoring working conditions so as to allow its immediate consultation, provided that this obligation is necessary for the purposes of the performance by that authority of its task of monitoring the application of the legislation relating to working conditions, in particular as regards working time.

               3.

               It is for the referring court to determine whether the employer’s obligation to provide the national authority responsible for monitoring working conditions access to the record of working time so as to allow its immediate consultation may be considered necessary for the purposes of the performance by that authority of its monitoring task, by contributing to the more effective application of the legislation relating to working conditions, in particular as regards working time, and, if so, whether the penalties imposed with a view to ensuring the effective application of the requirements laid down by Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003, concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, are consistent with the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Case C-508/04: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Measures transposing the directive)

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-508/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Measures transposing the directive)
   (2007/C 140/03)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and B. Schima, acting as Agents, and by M. Lang, avocat)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by E. Riedl and H. Dossi, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Incomplete and incorrect transposition of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(e), (g) and (i), Article 6(1) and (2), Articles 12 and 13, Article 16(1) and Article 22(b) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 19.02.2005.


title: Case C-347/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Linz — Austria) — Criminal proceedings against Jochen Dickinger, Franz Ömer (Freedom to provide services — Freedom of establishment — National legislation laying down a monopoly of the operation of internet casino games — Conditions under which permissible — Expansionist commercial policy — Checks on operators of games of chance carried out in other Member States — Monopoly awarded to a company governed by private law — Possibility of obtaining the monopoly reserved to capital companies established in national territory — Holder of the monopoly prohibited from setting up branches outside the Member State of establishment)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Linz — Austria) — Criminal proceedings against Jochen Dickinger, Franz Ömer
   (Case C-347/09) (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Freedom of establishment - National legislation laying down a monopoly of the operation of internet casino games - Conditions under which permissible - Expansionist commercial policy - Checks on operators of games of chance carried out in other Member States - Monopoly awarded to a company governed by private law - Possibility of obtaining the monopoly reserved to capital companies established in national territory - Holder of the monopoly prohibited from setting up branches outside the Member State of establishment)
   2011/C 319/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bezirksgericht Linz

      Parties in the main proceedings

   Jochen Dickinger, Franz Ömer

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bezirksgericht Linz — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — National legislation prohibiting, on pain of criminal penalties, the operation of games of chance without a licence issued by the competent authority, but reserving the possibility of obtaining such a licence, for a maximum period of 15 years, to capital companies which are established within the country and which do not have branches abroad

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               European Union law, in particular Article 49 EC, precludes the imposition of criminal penalties for infringing a monopoly of operating games of chance, such as the monopoly of operating online casino games laid down by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, if such legislation is not compatible with European Union law.

               2.

               Article 49 EC must be interpreted as applying to services of games of chance marketed over the internet in the territory of a host Member State by an operator established in another Member State despite the fact that the operator:

                           —

                           has set up certain computer support infrastructure, such as a server, in the host Member State and

                           —

                           makes use of computer support services of a provider established in the host Member State in order to provide his services to consumers who are likewise established in that Member State.

               3.

               Article 49 EC must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           (a)

                           a Member State seeking to ensure a particularly high level of consumer protection in the sector of games of chance may be entitled to consider that it is only by setting up a monopoly for a single entity subject to strict control by the public authorities that it can tackle crime linked to that sector and pursue the objective of preventing incitement to squander money on gambling and combating addiction to gambling with sufficient effectiveness;

                           (b)

                           to be consistent with the objective of fighting crime and reducing opportunities for gambling, national legislation establishing a monopoly of games of chance which allows the holder of the monopoly to follow an expansionist policy must:

                                       —

                                       be based on a finding that the crime and fraud linked to gaming and addiction to gambling are a problem in the Member State concerned which could be remedied by expanding authorised regulated activities, and

                                       —

                                       allow only moderate advertising limited strictly to what is necessary for channelling consumers towards monitored gaming networks;

                           (c)

                           the fact that a Member State has opted for a system of protection that differs from that adopted by another Member State cannot affect the assessment of the need for and proportionality of the relevant provisions, which must be assessed solely by reference to the objectives pursued by the competent authorities of the Member State concerned and the level of protection which they seek to ensure.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Namur by judgment of that court of 5 January 1998 in the case of Ermanno Agostini and Emanuele Agostini v. Ligue Francophone de Judo et Disciplines Associées ASBL and Ligue Belge de Judo ASBL (Case C-9/98)

text:
C 72/12              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                          7.3.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht           Must the answer to that question be different in the case
Heilbronn by order of that court of 16 June 1997 in the           of taking part in a competition to find the national
    case of Dansommer A/S, Denmark v. Andreas Götz                champion of the Member State concerned?
                        (Case C-8/98)
                         (98/C 72/21)                             Further, may the person in question claim the right to be
                                                                  treated in the same way as nationals of that State with
                                                                  respect to the teams selected by the national sports
                                                                  federation of the Member State concerned for
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                  participation in major international tournaments and
European Communities by an order of the Landgericht
                                                                  competitions such as the European or World
(Regional Court), Heilbronn, of 16 June 1997, which was
                                                                  Championships or the Olympic Games, or may the
received at the Court Registry on 14 January 1998, for a
                                                                  national federations reserve such selection for their
preliminary ruling in the case of Dansommer A/S,
                                                                  nationals exclusively?
Denmark v. Andreas Götz on the following question:
                                                                  (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October
Is Article 16(1)(a) of the Convention applicable to letting           1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
                                                                      Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968, p. 475).
agreements for holiday homes where the liability of the           (2) Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the
tour operator is limited to the letting of a holiday home             abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the
and travel costs insurance in the event of cancellation               Community for nationals of Member States with regard to
provided for by way of a form, but the owner and lessee               establishment and the provision of services (OJ L 172,
of the holiday home are not resident in the same                      28.6.1973, p. 14).
Contracting state?
                                                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Audiencia
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de           Provincial de Palma de Mallorca (Sección 3a) by order of
PremieÁre Instance de Namur by judgment of that court of          that court of 12 January 1998 in the case of M. Amengual
5 January 1998 in the case of Ermanno Agostini and                                      Far v. J. Amengual Far
Emanuele Agostini v. Ligue Francophone de Judo et
                                                                                (Case C-12/98)
Disciplines AssocieÂes ASBL and Ligue Belge de Judo ASBL
                        (Case C-9/98)                                                         (98/C 72/23)
                         (98/C 72/22)
                                                                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                  European Communities by order of the Audiencia
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the            Provincial de Palma de Mallorca (Sección 3a) (Provincial
European Communities by a judgment of the First Civil             Court, Mallorca, Third Chamber) of 12 January 1998,
Chamber of the Tribunal de PremieÁre Instance de Namur            which was received at the Court Registry on 20 January
(Court of First Instance, Namur) of 5 January 1998,               1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of M. Amengual
which was received at the Court Registry on 15 January            Far v. J. Amengual Far on the following questions:
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ermanno
Agostini and Emanuele Agostini v. Ligue Francophone de
Judo et Disciplines AssocieÂes ASBL and Ligue Belge de            1. Has the Spanish law on VAT, by making subject to
Judo ASBL on the following questions:                                  that tax any letting or lease of immovable property in
                                                                       which an economic activity is pursued, transposed
                                                                       correctly Article 13B of Directive 77/388/EEC? (1)
Is it consistent or not with the Treaty of Rome, in
particular Articles 6, 48 and 59 et seq. thereof, and with
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) and Council Directive             2. Should the Court rule that Article 13B of Directive
73/148/EEC (2) to prohibit a national of a Member State                77/388/EEC has not been correctly transposed, is that
of the European Union from taking part in a sporting                   Community provision, in so far as it lays down a
competition, whether as a professional, semi-professional              general exemption from VAT in respect of leases of
or amateur, on the ground that the person in question                  immovable property, directly applicable?
does not possess the nationality of the Member State on
whose territory the competition is organised, where it is
known that that person is the child of workers who are            (1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
established in that Member State and has himself acquired
the status of worker on the territory of that Member
State?


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Venezia, First Chamber, by order of 7 October 1997 in the case of Cinzia Gozza and Others v. (1) Università degli Studi di Padova; (2) Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica; (3) Ministero della Sanità; and (4) Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione (Case C-371/97)

text:
6. 12. 97             I EN I                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 370/5
the European Communities, represented by B. J. Drijber,                 2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, of the                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
                                                                        These are analogous to those in Case C-367/97 ( 2 ).
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        (') OJ L 319 , 12 . 12 . 1994 , p. 20 .
                                                                        ( 2 ) See p. 4 of this Official Journal .
1 . declare that, by not laying down the laws, regulations
     and administrative provisions necessary in order to
     comply with Council Directive 94/5 7/EC (') of
     22 November 1994 on common rules and standards
     for ship inspection and survey organizations and for
     the relevant activities of maritime administrations, the
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
     Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its                Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 7 October
     obligations under this directive and under the EC                  1997 in the case of Schutzverband gegen unlauteren
     Treaty;                                                                 Wettbewerb v. F. W. Woolworth Co . Gesellschaft mbH
                                                                                ( Case C-369/97 )
2 . order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the
     costs .                                                                                ( 97/C 370/ 12 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the Forth Senate of
                                                                        the Oberster Gerichtshof ( Supreme Court ), Austria , of
Under the mandatory provisions of the third paragraph of                7 October 1997, which was received at the Court Registry
Article 189 and of the first paragraph of Article 5 of the
                                                                        on 27 October 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case
EC Treaty, the Member States are required to lay down                   of Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb v. F. W.
the necessary rules in order to comply with directives                  Woolworth Co Gesellschaft mbH on the following
addressed to them before expiry of the period laid down                 question :
in those directives . In this case that period expired on
31 December 1995 without the Netherlands having laid
                                                                        does Article 30 of the EC Treaty preclude a provision
down the necessary provisions .
                                                                        which reserves the fitting and supplying of corrective
                                                                        spectacles and hence also the marketing of ready-made
(') OJ L 319 , 12 . 12 . 1994 , p . 20 .                                reading glasses to opticians who are permitted to exercise
                                                                        their craft trade only on providing proof of qualifications,
                                                                        if account is taken of the fact that
                                                                        ( a ) spectacles fitted by opticians are substantially more
                                                                               expensive than ready-made reading glasses and
Action brought on 24 October 1997 by the Commission                            opticians will therefore be more interested in sales of
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                             glasses fitted by them that in selling ready-made
                                Belgium                                        reading glasses; and
                          ( Case C-368/97)
                                                                        ( b ) ready-made reading glasses come ( partly ) from abroad,
                            ( 97/C 370/ 11 )                                   whereas spectacles fitted by opticians form part of
                                                                               domestic production ?
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 24 October 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by B. J. Drijber, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service,                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile
Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.                                              e Penale di Venezia, First Chamber, by order of 7 October
                                                                        1997       in  the    case    of Cinzia    Gozza and Others v.
                                                                        ( 1 ) Università degli Studi di Padova; ( 2 ) Ministero
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             dell'Università e della Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica;
                                                                        ( 3 ) Ministero della Sanità; and ( 4 ) Ministero della
1 . declare that, by not laying down the laws, regulations                                        Pubblica Istruzione
     and administrative provisions necessary in order to                                            ( Case C-371/97 )
     comply with Council Directive 94/57/EC (') of
     22 November 1994 on common rules and standards                                                   ( 97/C 370/ 13 )
     for ship inspection and survey organizations and for
     the relevant activities of maritime administrations, the           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations            European Communities by order of 7 October 1997 from
     under this directive and under the EC Treaty;                      the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Venezia ( Civil and
 ---pagebreak--- C 370/6                 I EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      6 . 12 . 97
Criminal District Court, Venice ), First Chamber, which                          Italian State, as having direct effect in favour of
was received at the Court Registry on 27 October 1997,                           trainee specialist doctors, in the sense of conferring on
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Cinzia Gozza and                         them an unrestricted right, as against the competent
Others v. ( 1 ) Università degli Studi di Padova;                                authorities of the State, to receive appropriate
( 2 ) Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca Scientifica e                    remuneration corresponding to the work performed in
Tecnologica ; ( 3 ) Ministero della Sanità ; and ( 4 ) Ministero               • the course of their professional training ?
della Pubblica Istruzione, on the following questions:
                                                                           2 . If the existence of the aforementioned right is
                                                                                recognized, what are the criteria for determining
1 . Does the provision in Directive 82/76/EEC (') under                          ' appropriate remuneration' with regard to both full
      which both full-time and part-time training of medical                     time and part-time training activities ?
      specialists ' shall be subject to appropriate
      remuneration' fall to be construed, even for the period              (') Council Directive of 26 January 1982 , OJ L 43 , 15 . 2 . 1982 ,
      during which no specific rules were adopted by the                        p. 21 .
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 29 September 1997                                                      of 29 September 1997
in Case T-4/97: Roberto D'Orazio and Pierre Hublau v.                      in Case T-70/97: Region of Wallonia v. Commission of
         Commission of the European Communities (')                                          the European Communities ( 1 )
 (State aid — Aid to the steel sector — Application for                    (State aid — Aid to the steel sector — Application for
annulment — Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty —                                annulment — Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty —
                              Inadmissibility)                                                         Inadmissibility)
                               ( 97/C 370/ 14                                                           ( 97/C 370/ 15 )
                   (Language of the case: French)                                            (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-4/97: Roberto D'Orazio and Pierre Hublau,                        In Case T-70/97: Region of Wallonia , represented by Jean
residing in Clabecq and Tubize ( Belgium ) respectively,                   Marie de Backer, Olivier Ralet and Georges
represented by Patrice Bonbled, Caroline Sokolowitch and                   Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
 Olivier Gemberling, of the Brussels Bar, 239/4 Rue Gatti                  service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
de Gamond, Brussels, against Commission of the                             Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange, against Commission of the
 European Communities ( Agent: Gerard Rozet ) —                            European Communities ( Agent: Gerard Rozet ) —
application for annulment of Commission Decision 97/                       application for annulment of Commission Decision 97/
271 /ECSC of 18 December 1996 on financial assistance                      271 /ECSC of 18 December 1996 on financial assistance
granted by the Region of Wallonia to the steel undertaking                 granted by the Region of Wallonia to the steel undertaking
 Forges de Clabecq ( OJ L 106 , 24 . 4 . 1997, p. 30 ) — the               Forges de Clabecq ( OJ L 106 , 24 . 4. 1997, p. 30 ) — the
 Court     of   First     Instance     ( First Chamber,     Extended       Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended
 Composition ), composed of A. Saggio, President, A.                       Composition ), composed of A. Saggio, President, A.
 Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili, R. M. Moura Ramos and K. J.                     Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili , R. M. Moura Ramos and K. J.
 Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar^ has made an order on                 Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
 29 September 1997, the operative part of which is as                      29 September 1997, the operative part of which is as
 follows :                                                                 follows :
 1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                          1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
 2 . the applicant is ordered to pay the costs.                             2 . The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
 (') OJ C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997 .                                               (') OJ C 181 , 14 . 6 . 1997 .


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 17 October 1995 in Case C-478/93: Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Commission of the European Communities (Bananas - Import system - Category A and Category B operators)

text:
25 . 11 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 315/3
pending before that court between Eckhard Kalanke and                 Communities ( Agents : E. de March and T. van Rijn ) —
Freie Hansestadt Bremen , supported by Heike Glifimann —              application for the annulment of Commission Regulation
on the interpretation of Article 2 ( 1 ) and ( 4 ) of Council         ( EEC ) No 2920/93 of 22 October 1993 fixing the uniform
Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                        reduction coefficient for determining the quantities of
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men            bananas to be allocated to each operator in Categories A and
and women as regards access to employment, vocational                 B in the context of the tariff quota for the second half of
training and promotion , and working conditions ( OJ 1976             1993 ( OJ 1993 L 264 , p. 40 ) — the Court, composed of:
L 39 , p. 40 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez              G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias , President, C. N. Kakouris , D. A. O.
Iglesias , President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.         Edward and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.
Puissochet and G. Flirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.           Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho
Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P.          de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray and
J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann and J. L. Murray,            L. Sevon , Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General ; H. von
Judges ; G. Tesauro , Advocate-General ; H. A. Ruhl ,                 Holstein , Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment           judgment on 17 October 1995 , in which it :
on 17 October 1995 , the operative part of which is as
follows :
                                                                      1 . Dismisses the action ;
Article 2 (\) and (4) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of
9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of             2 . Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the
equal treatment for men and women as regards access to                     costs .
employment, vocational training and promotion, and
working conditions precludes national rules such as those in
the present case which , where candidates of different sexes          (') O J No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
shortlisted for promotion are equally qualified,
automatically give priority to women in sectors where they
are under-represented, under-representation being deemed
to exist when women do not make up at least halfofthe staff
in the individual pay brackets in the relevant personnel
group or in the function levels provided for in the
organization chart.
(') O J No C 27 , 28 . 1 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 17 October 1995
                                                                      in Case C-44/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                      Divisional Court of the Queen 's Bench Division of the High
                                                                      Court of Justice ): The Queen v. Minister of Agriculture,
                                                                      Fisheries and Food, ex-parte National Federation of
                                                                      Fishermen 's Organizations and Others , Federation of
                                                                            Highlands and Islands Fishermen and Others (')
                                                                       (Common fisheries policy — Multiannual guidance
                                                                       programmes — Limitation of the number of days at sea)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             (9 SIC 315 /06 )
                       of 17 October 1995
in Case C-478/93 : Kingdom of the Netherlands v.
       Commission of the European Communities (')                                    (Language of the case: English)
 (Bananas — Import system — Category A and Category B
                              operators)                              In Case C-44/94 : reference to the Court under Article 1 77 of
                           ( 95/C 315/05 )                            the EC Treaty from the Divisional Court of the Queen 's
                                                                       Bench Division of the High Court of Justice ( United
                                                                      Kingdom ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                        pending before that court between The Queen and the
                                                                       Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food , ex-parte
                                                                      National Federation of Fishermen 's Organizations and
                                                                       Others , Federation of Highlands and Islands Fishermen and
 (Provisional translation ; the definitive translation will be         Others on the interpretaton of Articles 6 , 34 , 39 and 40 ( 3 )
          published in the European Court Reports)                     of the EC Treaty, Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3759/92 of
                                                                       17 December 1992 on the common organization of the
                                                                       market in fishery and aquaculture products ( OJ 1992 L 388 ,
 In Case C-478/93 : Kingdom of the Netherlands ( Agents : A.           p. 1 ), Council Regulation ( FTC ) No 3760/92 of
 Bos and f . W. de Zwaan ) v. Commission of the European               20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/64

         Removal from the Register of Case T-437/03 (1)

   (2005/C 217/137)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 7 June 2005, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-437/03, Anne-Marie Mathieu v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 59 of 6.3.2004.


title: Case T-235/08: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — Acron and Dorogobuzh v Council (Dumping — Imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia — Request for a partial interim review — Normal value — Export price — Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — Acron and Dorogobuzh v Council
   (Case T-235/08) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia - Request for a partial interim review - Normal value - Export price - Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
   2013/C 101/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Acron OAO (Moscow, Russia); and Dorogobuzh OAO (Moscow) (represented: initially by P. Vander Schueren and subsequently by B. Evtimov, lawyers, and by D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, and initially by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, lawyers, and subsequently by G. Berrisch)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and K Talabér Ritz, Agents); and Fertilizers Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 236/2008 of 10 March 2008 concerning terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of the anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ 2008 L 75, p.1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Acron OAO and Dorogobuzh OAO to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by Fertilizers Europe;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case T-244/01: Action brought on 3 October 2001 by Nippon Carbon Co., Ltd. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 17/14                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      19.1.2002
Action brought on 1 October 2001 by Tokai Carbon Co.,                    By its action, the applicant does not seek the annulment of the
Ltd. against the Commission of the European Communi-                     decision, but the annulment, or at least the substantial
                               ties                                      reduction, of the fine imposed. The applicant submits that the
                                                                         Commission should not have relied on worldwide turnover or
                                                                         worldwide market share in order to determine the starting
                                                                         level of the fine to be imposed on each of the firms participating
                        (Case T-236/01)                                  in the collusion, but should instead have considered their
                                                                         sales/market share in the EEA for this purpose.
                         (2002/C 17/25)
                                                                         The applicant alleges that, in an attempt to punish the
                                                                         applicant for its participation in the global cartel, but without
                   (Language of the case: English)                       any focus on the limited role it played in Europe, the
                                                                         Commission exceeded its jurisdiction. By relying exclusively
                                                                         on worldwide sales as a measure of each defendant’s capacity
                                                                         to cause harm to competition, the Commission has infringed
                                                                         the EC Treaty by violating the principle ‘ne bis in idem’.
                                                                         Furthermore, by dividing the undertakings concerned into
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                three categories on the basis of arbitrarily chosen criteria and
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               by punishing the applicant much more harshly than several
European Communities on 1 October 2001 by Tokai Car-                     of the other undertakings, the Commission has infringed
bon Co., Ltd, represented by Mr Gerwin Van Gerven, Mr Tho-               Article 253 EC and the principles of equal treatment and
mas Franchoo and Mr Martijn De Grave of Linklat-                         proportionality.
ers & Alliance, Brussels (Belgium).
                                                                         Finally, the applicant states that the Commission has commit-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              ted a manifest error of assessment e.g. by attributing an
                                                                         incorrect market share to the applicant and by denying the
                                                                         applicant the benefit of attenuating circumstances, while at the
—     annul Article 3 (and in so far as necessary Article 4) of          same time permitting another firm to benefit from them.
      the Commission decision of 18 July 2001 in Case
      COMP/E-1/36.490 — Graphite electrodes, in so far as it
      imposes a fine of EUR 24.5 million on Tokai, or, at least,
      substantially reduce that fine; and
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Action brought on 3 October 2001 by Nippon Carbon
                                                                         Co., Ltd. against the Commission of the European Com-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                        munities
                                                                                (Case T-244/01)
The applicant is a Japanese company, active in the carbon
industry. In its reply to the Commission’s statement of
objections concerning a cartel in the graphic electrode sector,                                     (2002/C 17/26)
which has also been the subject of parallel investigations in
other states, e.g. in the United States, the applicant acknowl-
edged that its participation in the collusive arrangements
concerned constituted a violation of the EC competition rules.                               (Language of the case: English)
In the contested decision, the Commission found that eight
undertakings, including the applicant, had participated in a             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
global cartel, the object of which was inter alia to allocate            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
markets on a worldwide level, and thus to withhold competi-              European Communities on 3 October 2001 by Nippon Carbon
tive reserves from the EEA market. The decision imposed fines            Co., Ltd., represented by Mr H. Gilliams of Eubelius Advocaten,
on the companies involved.                                               Brussels (Belgium).
 ---pagebreak--- 19.1.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 17/15
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The Applicant alleges that the Commission has inappropriately
                                                                         refused to take account of attenuating circumstances as set out
                                                                         in the Commission’s Guidelines on the method of setting fines
—     annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 18 July              and thereby violated the principle ‘patere legem quam ipse
      2001 in Case COMP/E-1/36.490 — Graphite electrodes,                fecisti’ and the protection of legitimate interests. It also acted
      in so far as it declares that the Applicant has participated       ultra vires and in violation of Articles 3(g), 5 and 81 EC by
      in an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53(1)              imposing a fine calculated on the basis of the Applicant’s
      EEA for the period May 1992-March 1993;                            worldwide turnover, even though the fine relates to an
                                                                         infringement that was implemented by the Applicant almost
                                                                         exclusively outside the European Union.
—     annul Article 3 of the Commission Decision of 18 July
      2001 in Case COMP/E-1/36.490 — Graphite electrodes,
      in so far as it imposes on the Applicant a fine of EUR
                                                                         Finally, the Applicant submits that the Commission has
      12.2 million;
                                                                         violated the principle of fairness and the principle ‘non bis in
                                                                         idem’, by failing to take into consideration the fine already
                                                                         imposed by a third State when determining the level of the
—     in the alternative, substantially reduce the above-men-            fine to be imposed on the Applicant.
      tioned fine;
—     in any event, order that the costs of the proceedings be
      borne by the Commission.
                                                                         Action brought on 4 October 2001 by Showa Denko K.K.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-245/01)
The Applicant is a small Japanese producer of graphite
electrodes. According to the contested decision, the Applicant                                    (2002/C 17/27)
and seven other undertakings had infringed Article 81(1) of
the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement by
participating in a complex of agreements and concerted                                      (Language of the case: English)
practices in the graphite sector. In the decision, the Com-
mission labelled the Japanese producers ‘active members’
participating in the illicit arrangement and inflicted a fine on
the Applicant of EUR 12.2 million. The infringement also
resulted in parallel proceedings in other states, e.g. in the            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
United States.                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 4 October 2001 by Showa Denko
                                                                         K.K., represented by Mr Maurits Dolmans and Mr Peter
                                                                         Werdmuller of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, Brussels
The Applicant denies neither the existence of an infringement            (Belgium).
nor its participation in that infringement. It submits, however,
that the Commission has infringed essential procedural
requirements and rights, including the right to a defence, the           The applicant claims that the Court should:
duty to state reasons, and the principle of equal treatment, by
declaring, despite the absence of sufficient and/or admissible
evidence, that the Applicant participated in the infringement            —     annul Article 3(d) of the Commission’s Decision in Case
between May 1992 and March 1993.                                               No. COMP/E-1/36.490 — Graphite electrodes, or
                                                                         —     alternatively, reduce the fine imposed on Showa Denko
                                                                               K.K. to EUR 2.95 million or such other amount as
Furthermore, by its unlawful determination of the base amount                  the Court deems proportional, reasonable and non-
of the Applicant’s fine and by its imposition of a fine out of                 discriminatory;
proportion to the volume and the value of the products
concerned realised by the Applicant, the Commission has
violated the principles of proportionality and equal treatment           —     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal fees
as well as the duty to state reasons.                                          and expenses.


title: Case C-301/02 P: Appeal brought on 26 August 2002 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli against the judgment delivered on 27 June 2002 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Joined Cases T-373/00, T-27/01, T-56/01 and T-69/01 between Carmine Salvatore Tralli and the European Central Bank

text:
C 289/8                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.11.2002
Appeal brought on 26 August 2002 by Carmine Salvatore                          It was not possible for the Governing Council of the
Tralli against the judgment delivered on 27 June 2002 by                       ECB to transfer the power to lay down conditions of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                        employment, as conferred on it by Article 36.1 of the
(Third Chamber) in Joined Cases T-373/00, T-27/01, T-56/                       ESCB Statute, to the Executive Board without infringing
01 and T-69/01 between Carmine Salvatore Tralli and the                        the principle of institutional equilibrium. The Court of
                     European Central Bank                                     First Instance failed to have regard to the fact that the
                                                                               Governing Council of the ECB did not in any way transfer
                                                                               that power to the Executive Board; the appellant expressly
                        (Case C-301/02 P)                                      contested this point in his initial written application, yet
                                                                               the Court of First Instance did not consider that com-
                         (2002/C 289/13)                                       plaint; instead, it presumed the existence of an implicit
                                                                               mandate falling within the scope of Article 21.3 of the
                                                                               ECB’s Rules of Procedure, notwithstanding that any such
                                                                               transfer of powers would have had to be effected
                                                                               expressly.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 27 June 2002 by
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Third Chamber) in Joined Cases T-373/00, T-27/01, T-56/                 In the alternative:
01 and T-69/01 between Carmine Salvatore Tralli and the
European Central Bank was brought before the Court of Justice            —     The contested judgment disregards the fact that the task
of the European Communities on 26 August 2002 by Carmine                       of adopting a decision concerning the extension of a
Salvatore Tralli, represented by Norbert Pflüger, lawyer, of                   probationary period in abnormal circumstances cannot
Kaiserstrasse 44, D-60329 Frankfurt am Main, with an address                   be transferred to the Vice-President of the ECB; it is
for service in Luxembourg.                                                     clear from the wording of the second subparagraph of
                                                                               Article 2.1.2 of the SR that it was for the Executive Board
                                                                               alone to decide on an extension of the probationary
The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the                       period.
judgment ( 1) contested in the appeal and in particular:
                                                                         —     The Court of First Instance ignored, in the contested
(1) annul the decision of the respondent (‘the ECB’) dismissing                judgment, the ECB’s unequivocal statement concerning
      the appellant from its employment;                                       the reason for the extension of the probationary period,
                                                                               thereby infringing essential principles relating to the
                                                                               burden of proof.
(2) annul the decision of the ECB concerning the extension
      of the probationary period;
                                                                         —     As regards the appellant’s complaint concerning the
                                                                               absence of any proper induction of the appellant into his
(3) order the ECB to pay to the appellant, in respect of the                   job, the Court of First Instance should have ascertained
      period extending beyond 31 December 2000, his basic                      the facts and was not entitled simply to adopt the
      salary amounting to EUR 32 304,00 per annum together                     arguments advanced by the ECB.
      with the allowances and other items of remuneration
      provided for in the ECB’s conditions of employment;
                                                                         The decision on costs is based on an error of law:
(4) order the ECB to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     In view of the fact that the law governing staff members
                                                                               of the ECB had not previously been the subject of any
                                                                               detailed analysis in judicial decisions, the appellant was
                                                                               forced, as a precautionary measure, to assume that the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                pre-litigation procedure on which Cases T-27/01 and
                                                                               T-69/01 were based was admissible. In actual fact, the
                                                                               ECB itself caused the judicial proceedings to be instituted,
Infringement of substantive Community law:                                     as a consequence of the inadequate terms in which
                                                                               subparagraph (iii) in the second paragraph of Article 41
—     The Court of First Instance failed to have regard to the                 of the CoE is formulated.
      fact that the rules contained in the second subparagraph
      of Article 2.1.2 and Article 2.1.3 of the European Central         —     The bringing of the action in Case T-56/01 was prompted
      Bank Staff Rules (‘the SR’) are null and void: those rules               by a failure by the ECB to comply with its obligations.
      do not in any way constitute a transposition of the                      This corresponds to the duty of an employer to have
      Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European                       regard for the welfare and interests of his employees by
      Central Bank (‘the CoE’). Instead, the present case con-                 responding within one month to a complaint lodged by
      cerns autonomous conditions of employment.                               an employee.
      Article 2.1.3 of the SR introduces, in contradiction to
      Article 11(a)(i) of the CoE, a different criterion for
      dismissal during the probationary period; the standard             (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24 August 2002.
      governing entitlement to give notice of dismissal is
      lowered by comparison with Article 11(a)(i) of the CoE.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam by decision of that court of 1 February 1996 in the case of Koninklijke Vereeniging ter Bevordering van de Belangen des Boekhandels v. (1) Free Record Shop BV and (2) Free Record Shop Holding NV (Case C-39/96)

text:
30 . 3 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 95/ 11
dues arrangements previously in force — a genuine internal           13 February 1996 by the Commission of the European
charge which is not discriminatory and is consistent with the        Communities, represented by H. Van Lier, Legal Adviser,
letter and spirit of the Treaty establishing the European            and R. Vidal , of its Legal Service,with an address for service
Community ?                                                          in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of
                                                                     its Legal Service, C 252, Wagner Centre .
(M OJ No L 399 , 30 . 12 . 1989, p . 46 .
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     1 . declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the
                                                                           or, in the subsidiary, by failing to notify, within
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam by decision of                       the prescribed period, the laws, regulations or
that court of 1 February 1996 in the case of Koninklijke                   administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Vereeniging ter Bevordering van de Belangen des                            Council Directive 90/377/EEC ( ! ) of 29 June 1990
Boekhandels v. ( 1 ) Free Record Shop BV and ( 2 ) Free
                                                                           concerning a Community procedure to improve the
                  Record Shop Holding NV
                                                                           transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to
                        ( Case C-39/96 )                                   industrial end-users, the Kingdom of Spain'Has failed to
                          ( 96/C 95/ 19 )                                  fulfil its obligations under Articles 5 and 189 of the
                                                                           Treaty establishing the European Community;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by a decision of the                        2 . order the defendant to pay the costs .
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam ( District Court,
Amsterdam ) of 1 February 1996 , which was received at the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Court Registry on 13 February 1996 , for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Koninklijke Vereeniging ter Bevordering        The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
van de Belangen des Boekhandels ( Royal Association for the          paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of Article 5
Promotion of the Interests of the Book Trade ) v. ( 1 ) Free         of the EC Treaty requires Member States to adopt the
Record Shop BV and ( 2 ) Free Record Shop Holding NV on              measures necessary to transpose directives addressed to
the following questions :                                            them into their domestic law before the expiry of the period
                                                                     prescribed for doing so and forthwith to inform the
( 1 ) If an agreement between undertakings or a decision by          Commission thereof. That period expired on 1 July 1991
      an association of undertakings to regulate competition         without the Kingdom of Spain having brought into force the
      came into existence prior to the entry into force of           necessary provisions concerning transparency of gas prices
      Regulation No 17/62 (*) and was notified to the                charged to end-users .
      Commission in good time pursuant to the provisions of
      that Regulation, does that agreement or decision               (') OJ No L 185 , 17. 7. 1990 , p . 16 .
      continue to benefit from the 'provisional validity'
      which notified cartels enjoy according to the case-law
      of the Court of Justice if the Commission has not
      reacted in any way to that notification ?
( 2 ) If the answer is yes : does that 'provisional validity'        Action brought on 14 February 1996 by the Commission of
      continue for an unlimited period ? If the answer is              the European Communities against the French Republic
      no : on what circumstances will the expiry of the                                         Case C-43/96 )
      'provisional validity' then depend ?                                                       ( 96/C 95/21 )
( 3 ) Does the 'provisional validity' apply solely to the
      agreement or decision, as referred to in Question 1 , in       An action against the French Republic was brought before
      the form in which it was notified, or does it also apply       the Court of Justice on 14 February 1996 by the
      to agreements and decisions which have since come              Commission of the European Communities, represented by
      into existence and continue the same cartel agreements         Helene Michard and Enrico Traversa, of its Legal Service,
      in an amended form, in so far as they do not involve any       acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg
      extension or reinforcement of the cartel agreements in         at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre ,
      the light of the operation and realization of the              Kirchberg.
      common market ?
                                                                     The Commission of the European Communities claims that
(') OJ, English Special Edition 1959— 1962, p. 204 .                 the Court should :
                                                                     ( 1 ) declare that, by maintaining in force legislation
                                                                            excluding the deductibility of VAT in respect of means
Action brought on 13 February 1996 by the Commission                        of transport constituting the actual tools of the trade of
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                          the taxable person, the French Republic has failed to
                               Spain                                        fulfil its obligations under the Sixth Council Directive
                        ( Case C-40/96 )                                    77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of
                          ( 96/C 95/20 )                                    the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
                                                                            taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                   basis of assessment ( ! ), in particular the provisions of
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                         Article 17 ( 2 ) thereof;


title: Case T-466/08: Action brought on 21 October 2008 — Lancôme v OHIM — Focus Magazin Verlag (ACNO FOCUS)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/36

         Action brought on 21 October 2008 — Lancôme v OHIM — Focus Magazin Verlag (ACNO FOCUS)
   (Case T-466/08)
   (2009/C 6/72)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC (Paris, France) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and J. Pagenberg, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH (München, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 July 2008 in case R 1796/2007-1;

               —

               Dismiss the opposition filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal against the registration of the community trade mark concerned to the extent the opposition is based on the trade mark cited in the opposition proceedings and, further, is based on a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal, should the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal become an intervener in the present case.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ACNO FOCUS’ for goods in class 3 — application No 3 272 705

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 394 07 564 of the word mark ‘FOCUS’ for goods and services in classes 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42; Community trade mark application No 453 720 for, among others, goods in class 3

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(3) in conjunction with Article 43(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its approach that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal can rely on goods in class 3 to oppose the registration of the Community trade mark concerned; Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there exists a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


title: Case T-224/13: Action brought on 22 April 2013 — Melitta France v Commission

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/36

         Action brought on 22 April 2013 — Melitta France v Commission
   (Case T-224/13)
   2013/C 171/68
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Melitta France (Chezy-sur-Marne, France) (represented by: H.Weil, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste in so far as it adds to the examples of products constituting packaging ‘rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material (e.g. plastic film, aluminium, paper) is wound’;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to the first five pleas put forward in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio, Athens, by judgment of that court of 29 March 1990 in the case of Astir AE v. Greek State (Case C-109/95)

text:
No C 137/ 14           f EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        3 . 6 . 95
 1 . Is an oral agreement on the place of performance                   References for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
     ( Brussels Convention, Article 5 ) to be recognized even if        Circondariale di Roma — Sezione distaccate di Tivoli e di
     it is not intended to fix the place at which the person            Castelnuovo — by orders of those courts of February and
     liable has to perform the obligations incumbent on him,            March 1995 in criminal proceedings pending before them
     but is intended solely to establish — informally — that            against Giuseppe Salmaggi, Savatore Pasquire and Massimo
     the courts for a particular place are to have jurisdiction                                         Zappone
     (a so-called 'abstract' agreement on the place of                          ( Cases C-112/95 , C-119/95 and C-123/95 )
     performance )?
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/30 )
2 . In the event that the Court of Justice should answer
     question 1 in the negative :                                       References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by orders of the Pretura
     ( a ) Can an agreement conferring jurisdiction in                  Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccate di Tivoli e di
           international trade or commerce in accordance
                                                                        Castelnuovo ( Rome District Magistrates' Court — Tivoli
           with the third hypothesis mentioned in the second            and Castelnuovo Divisions ) which were received at the
           sentence of the first paragraph of Article 17 of the         Court Registry on 3 , 6 , 10 April 1995 respectively, for a
           1978 version of the Brussels Convention also be
                                                                        preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against Giuseppe
           concluded by one party's not contradicting a                 Salmaggi, Savatore Pasquire and Massimo Zappone on the
           commercial letter of confirmation containing a               following questions :
           pre-printed reference to the courts of the
           consignors ' place of business having sole                   1 . What is the legal effect of the Italian Republic 's failure to
           jurisdiction or must there have been in every case               bring into force the necessary measures to implement
           prior consensus with regard to the content of the                Council Directive 91/156/EEC ( l ), amending Directive
           letter of confirmation ?                                         75/442/EEC within the prescribed time limit ?
     ( b ) Is it sufficient in order for there to be an agreement       2 . In particular, may the existence of criminal penalties,
           conferring jurisdiction within the meaning of the                and in particular those provided for in Articles 10 and
           aforesaid provision if the invoices sent by one party            25 ( Case C-75/95 ) and Article 25 et seq. ( Case C-58/95 )
           all contain a reference to the courts of the carrier 's
                                                                            of Presidential Decree No 915 /82 for failure to observe
           place of business having sole jurisdiction and to the            the Italian rules, be considered to conflict with
           conditions of the bill of lading used by the carrier             Community legislation where it seeks to ensure uniform
           which also stipulate the courts of the same place as             treatment, from the point of view of penalties as well, for
           having jurisdiction, and the other party invariably              operators in the Single Market.
           paid the invoices without objecting, or is prior
           consensus also required in this respect ?                    (') OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles
Protodikio, Athens , by judgment of that court of 29 March              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil Arbitral
          1990 in the case of Astir AE v. Greek State
                                                                        des Assurances Sociales by decision of that court of 5 April
                          ( Case C-109/95 )                             1995 in the case of Nicolas Decker v. Caisse de Maladie des
                            ( 95/C 137/29 )                                                      Employés Privés
                                                                                ( Case C-120/95 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                             ( 95/C 137/31 )
European Communities by a judgment of the Polimeles
Protodikio ( Court of First Instance , several judges ), Athens,
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of 29 March 1990, which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                        European Communities by a decision of the Conseil Arbitral
on 3 April 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Astir
                                                                        des Assurances Sociales ( Arbitral Council of Social
AE v. Greek State pending before it on the following
                                                                        Insurance ) of 5 April 1995 , which was received at the Court
question :
                                                                        Registry on 7 April 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
On a proper construction of Article 10 ( 4 ) of Commission              of Nicolas Decker v. Caisse de Maladie des Employes Prives
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2730/79 , in conjunction with the                 ( Health Insurance Fund for Employees in the Private Sector )
provisions of Articles 20 and 21 thereof, is an exporter of an          on the following question :
agricultural product, in this case wheat flour, entitled to a
refund when the exported product after leaving the                      Is Article 60 of the Luxembourg Social Insurance Code,
geographical territory of the Community has perished in                 under which a social security institution of Member State A
transit as a result of force majeure and where for that                refuses to refund to an insured person, who is a national of
product the same amount of refund was fixed for all                    Member State A, the cost of spectacles with corrective
non-member countries except the Soviet Union for which as               lenses, prescribed by a doctor established in Member State A
regards the product mentioned above no amount of refund                 but purchased from an optician established in Member State
was fixed ?                                                             B, on the ground that all medical treatment outside Member
                                                                        State A must be authorized in advance by the above social
                                                                        security institution, compatible with Articles 30 and 36 of


title: Case T-211/15 P: Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — Necci v Commission

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/75

         Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — Necci v Commission
   (Case T-211/15 P) (1)

   (2016/C 038/101)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.


29.4.2000             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 122/17
       Removal from the register of Case C-380/97 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-395/97 (1)
                         (2000/C 122/33)                                                     (2000/C 122/36)
By order of 20 January 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 1 February 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-380/97 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                      from the register of Case C-395/97 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank, The Hague): Emesa
Sugar (Free Zone) NV v Kingdom of the Netherlands and                 ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Landesgrundver-
                                                                      kehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung v Herbert Kappes
Others.
                                                                      and Edwin Neuner.
(1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 26 of 24.1.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-345/97 (1)
                         (2000/C 122/34)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-290/99 (1)
By order of 27 January 2000 the President of the Court of                                    (2000/C 122/37)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case-345/97: Federal Republic of Germany
v Council of the European Union.                                      By order of 3 February 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case-290/99: Council of the European
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.                                           Union v Martin Bangemann.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-407/97 (1)
                         (2000/C 122/35)
By order of 31 January 2000 the President of the Court of                    Removal from the register of Case C-288/98 (1)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-407/97 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Landesgrundver-                                       (2000/C 122/38)
kehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung v Adolf Sparber,
Firma Atelier Delta Entwurf — und Planungsgesellschaft mbH,           By order of 18 February 2000 the President of the Court of
en liquidation, Hans-Eberhard Junkersdorf and Maria-Margare-          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
te Junkersdorf.                                                       from the register of Case C-288/98 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                      ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione): Istituto Nazion-
                                                                      ale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) v Mario Maraldi SpA.
(1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.