title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 19 November 1998 in Case C-85/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Liège (Belgium)): Société Financière d'Investissements SPRL (SFI) and Belgian State (VAT - Limitation period - Starting-point - Method of calculation) (1999/C 1/06)

text:
C 1/4                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.1.1999
2. Annuls the decision adopted by the Commission                     1. Articles 4 and 10 of the Sixth Council Directive
     following the favourable opinion of the Textile                      77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of
     Committee, which met on 6 March 1996, concerning                     the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
     the importation of textile products and clothing                     taxes do not preclude a national practice which, in the
     originating in the People's Republic of China;                       case of transactions subject to VAT effected by a
                                                                          company before it was registered for VAT, consists in
                                                                          fixing the starting-point of the limitation period for
                                                                          the recovery of that tax at the 20th of the month
3. Declares that the effects of the annulled decision are                 following the quarter in which that registration took
     to be maintained in force;                                           place.
4. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                           2. The First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April
                                                                          1967 and the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
                                                                          17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.                                                  Member States relating to turnover taxes preclude the
                                                                          VAT on a benefit granted by an employer to his
                                                                          employee in the form of the placing of a vehicle at his
                                                                          disposal for private use from being calculated by
                                                                          including in the taxable amount the VAT paid by the
                                                                          employer in another Member State on the renting of
                                                                          that vehicle, whereas, if the vehicle had been rented in
                                                                          the Member State in question, the taxable amount
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      would not have included the VAT paid.
                      (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
                    of 19 November 1998
in Case C-85/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de PremieÁre Instance de LieÁge (Belgium)):
SocieÂteÂ FinancieÁre d'Investissements SPRL (SFI) and
                        Belgian State (1)
(VAT Ð Limitation period Ð Starting-point Ð Method of
                          calculation)                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                         (1999/C 1/06)
                                                                                of 19 November 1998
                                                                     in Case C-162/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                (Language of the case: French)                       the Helsingborgs Tingsrätt): Criminal proceedings before
                                                                     that court against Gunnar Nilsson, Per Olov Hagelgren,
                                                                                Solweig Arrborn (1)
                                                                     (Free movement of goods Ð Prohibition of quantitative
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       restrictions and measures having equivalent effect between
          published in the European Court Reports)                   Member States Ð Derogations Ð Protection of the life
                                                                     and health of animals Ð Improvement of livestock Ð
                                                                     Breeding of pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine
                                                                                species Ð Artificial insemination)
In Case C-85/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de PremieÁre Instance de                                     (1999/C 1/07)
LieÁge (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between SocieÂteÂ FinancieÁre
d'Investissements SPRL (SFI) and Belgian State on the
interpretation of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC                            (Language of the case: Swedish)
of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
(OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1) and Article 95 of the EC                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Treaty Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J. L.                        published in the European Court Reports)
Murray (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the
Chamber, H. Ragnemalm and K. M. Ioannou, Judges;
J. Mischo, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on                     In Case C-162/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
19 November 1998, in which it has ruled:                             of the EC Treaty by the Helsingborgs Tingsrätt (Sweden)


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 15 April 1997 in Case C-105/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, Münster): Paul Daut GmbH & Co. KG v. Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Gütersloh (Mechanically recovered meat - Heat treatment - Health conditions for production and marketing - Intra-Community trade)

text:
No C 166/2            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     31 . 5 . 97
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     (3) of the EC Treaty or to the general principles of
                        ( Sixth Chamber)                                 equal treatment and/or proportionality.
                       of 15 April 1997                             (') OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .
in Case C-27/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice ): Woodspring District Council v.
                    Bakers of Nailsea Ltd (')
(Ante-mortem health inspections in slaughterhouses —
Validity — Role of official veterinarians — Charges passed                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                on to slaughterhouse operators)                                             (Fourth Chamber)
                           97/C 166/02 )                                                     of 15 April 1997
                                                                    in Case C-105/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                    the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-West
                (Language of the case: English)                     falen, Münster): Paul Daut GmbH &c Co. KG v. Ober
                                                                                kreisdirektor des Kreises Gütersloh (')
                                                                    (Mechanically recovered meat — Heat treatment —
In Case C-27/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177          Health conditions for production and marketing — Intra
of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice ( Bristol                                   Community trade)
Mercantile Court, United Kingdom ), for a preliminary
                                                                                ( 971C 166/03 )
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Woodspring District Council and Bakers of                                  (Language of the case: German)
Nailsea Ltd — on the validity of Council Directive 64/
433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting
intra-Community trade in fresh meat ( OJ, English Special             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Edition 1963—1964, p. 185 ), as amended and                                   published in the European Court Reports)
consolidated by Council Directive 91 /497/EEC of 29 July
1991 ( OJ No L 268 , 1991 , p. 69 ), having regard to               In Case C- 105/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Articles 39 and 40 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty and the general           of the EC Treaty from the Oberverwaltungsgericht fur das
principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, —             Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Higher Administrative Court,
the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: J. L. Murray               North Rhine Westphalia ), Miinster ( Germany), for a
( Rapporteur), President of the Fourth Chamber, acting as           preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
President of the Sixth Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.            court between Paul Daut GmbH & Co . KG and
Kapteyn, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. La                  Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Giitersloh — on the
Pergola, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                  interpretation of Council Directive 64/43 3/EEC of 26 June
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on               1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade
15 April 1997, in which it has ruled:                               in fresh meat ( OJ, English Special Edition 1963—1964,
                                                                    p. 185 ), as amended and consolidated by Council
                                                                    Directive 91 /497/EEC of 29 July 1991 ( OJ No L 268 ,
 1 . A private individual may plead in proceedings before a          1991 , p. 69 ), Council Directive 89/608/EEC of
                                                                    21 November 1989 on mutual assistance between the
     national court an infringement of Articles 39 and 40           administrative authorities of the Member States and
     (3) of the EC Treaty and of the general principles of
     proportionality and non-discrimination in order to             cooperation between the latter and the Commission to
     challenge the validity of an act of the Community              ensure the correct application of legislation on veterinary
     institutions .                                                 and zootechnical matters ( OJ No L 351 , 1989, p. 34 ), and
                                                                    Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fourth
                                                                    Chamber), composed of: C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ),
                                                                    acting as President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and
2 . Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on                 H. Ragnemalm, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
     health problems affecting intra-Community trade in             Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
     fresh meat, as amended and consolidated by Council             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
     Directive 91 /497/EEC of 29 July 1991 , is not invalid          15 April 1997, in which it has ruled:
     having regard to Articles 39 and 40 (3) of the EC
     Treaty and the general principle of proportionality, in         I. Article 6 (1 ) (c) and (g) of Council Directive 64/433/
     so far as it requires and/or permits Member States to               EEC of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting
     require health inspections at slaughterhouses to be                 intra-Community trade in fresh meat, as amended and
     carried out by official veterinarians and/or in so far as           consolidated by Council Directive 91 /497/EEC of
     it requires ante-mortem inspections to be carried out.              29 July 1991 , preclude national rules that prohibit the
                                                                         import of mechanically recovered meat which has not
                                                                         been subjected to heat treatment in the Member State
 3 . The obligation under Directive 64/433 for the costs of              of origin but is intended to be subjected to such
     health inspections by official veterinarians to be borne            treatment in an approved establishment in the Member
     by the slaughterhouse at which the animals are to be                State of importation designated by the official
     slaughtered is not contrary either to Articles 39 and 40            veterinarian in the State of origin.
 ---pagebreak--- 31 . 5 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 166/3
2 . The competent veterinary authority of the Member                   1 . Article 2 (1 ) and (4) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
      State of origin may, under Council Directive 89/608/                  No 1624/76 of 2 July 1976 concerning special
      EEC of 21 November 1989 on mutual assistance                          arrangements for the payment of aid for skimmed
      between the administrative authorities of the Member                  milk powder denatured or processed into compound
      States and cooperation between the latter and the                     feedingstuffs in the territory of another Member State,
      Commission to ensure the correct application of                       as amended by Article 1 of Commission Regulation
      legislation on veterinary and zootechnical matters,                   (EEC) No 1726/79 of 26 July 1979, and Article 10 of
      seek the assistance of the competent veterinary                       Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1725/79 of 26 July
      authority of the Member State of importation, without                 1979 on the rules for granting aid to skimmed milk
      such a request affecting the right of the official                    processed into compound feedingstuffs and skimmed
      veterinarian in the Member State of origin to                         milk powder intended for feed for calves, in
      designate, for the purposes of the heat treatment to be               conjunction with Article 34 of the EC Treaty, preclude
      carried out, an establishment in the Member State of                  systematic inspections to verify compliance with the
      importation.                                                          conditions as to the composition and quality of
                                                                            skimmed-milk powder intended for processing into
O OJNoC 159,24 . 6 . 1995 .                                                 compound feedingstuffs in another Member State on
                                                                            which entitlement to export refunds depends, where
                                                                            those inspections are carried out, with a view to
                                                                            subsequent export of the goods inspected, inside the
                                                                            exporting State and not at the frontier. However, those
                                                                            provisions do not preclude such inspections if they are
                                                                            carried out only by means of spot checks.
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Fourth Chamber)
                                                                       2 . A charge levied in respect of systematic inspections
                          of 15 April 1997                                  carried out inside the exporting State with a view to
in Case C-272/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   subsequent export of the goods inspected constitutes a
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht ): Bundesanstalt für Land                     charge having an effect equivalent to customs duties
wirtschaft und Ernährung v. Deutsches Milch-Kontor                          on exports, prohibited under Articles 9 and 12 of the
                               GmbH (M                                      EC Treaty, even if it corresponds to the actual cost of
                                                                            each inspection.
 (Aid for skimmed-milk powder — Systematic inspections
                     — Costs of inspections)
                                                                       O OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
                            ( 97/C 166/04 )
                 (Language of the case: German)
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
In Case C-272/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177                                    of 15 April 1997
 of the EC Treaty from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
 ( Federal Administrative Court) for a preliminary ruling in           in Case C-292/95 : Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of
 the proceedings pending before that court between                                      the European Communities ( ] )
 Bundesanstalt fur Landwirtschaft und Ernahrung and                     (Action for annulment — Framework on State aid to the
 Deutsches Milch-Kontor GmbH — on the interpretation                   motor vehicle industry — Retroactive prolongation —
 of Article 2 ( 1 ) and (4 ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC )                          Article 93 (1 ) of the EC Treaty)
 No 1624/76 of 2 July 1976 concerning special
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/05 )
 arrangements for the payment of aid for skimmed-milk
 powder denatured or processed into compound
 feedingstuffs in the territory of another Member State ( OJ                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
 No L 180, 1976 , p. 9 ), as amended by Article 1 of
 Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1726/79 of 26 July                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
  1979 ( OJ No L 199 , 1979 , p. 10 ), on the interpretation of
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
 Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EEC ) No 1725/79
  of 26 July 1979 on the rules for granting aid to skimmed
  milk processed into compound feedingstuffs and skimmed               In Case C-292/95 : Kingdom of Spain (Agents : Alberto
  milk powder intended for feed for calves ( OJ No L 199,               Navarro Gonzalez and Miguel Bravo-Ferrer Delgado ) v.
  1979 , p. 1 ) and on the interpretation of Articles 9, 12, 16         Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
  and 95 of the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fourth Chamber),                Gerard Rozet and Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz ) —
  composed of: J. L. Murray, President of the Chamber                   application for annulment of the Commission's decision,
  ( Rapporteur), C. N. Kakouris and P. J. G. Kapteyn,                   notified by letter of 6 July 1995 and published in the
 Judges; R Leger, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal              Official Journal of the European Communities ( OJ No
  Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on             C 284, 1995 , p. 3 ), to prolong, with retroactive effect
  15 April 1997, in which it has ruled:                                 from 1 January 1995 , its decision of 23 December 1992


title: Case C-302/05: Action brought on 28 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against Italian Republic

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/10

         Action brought on 28 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against Italian Republic
   (Case C-302/05)
   (2005/C 229/20)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Schima and D. Recchia, of its Legal Service.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Find that, by providing that the retention of title clause must be confirmed on individual invoices for successive supplies bearing a date certain prior to the attachment and duly entered in accounting records in order to be enforceable against creditors of the purchaser, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/35/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions;

               2.

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/35/EC provides that, to ensure retention of title to goods until they are fully paid for, the buyer and the seller must make an agreement to that effect before the delivery of the goods.
   Article 11(3) of Legislative Decree No 231/2002 (the measure implementing Directive 2000/35/EC in Italian law) provides that the retention of title clause will be enforceable against creditors of the purchaser only if that clause is confirmed on individual invoices for successive supplies bearing a date certain prior to the attachment and duly entered in the accounting records.
   Enforceability against creditors of the purchaser constitutes an essential element of the agreement for retention of title. The conditions laid down by Article 11(3) of Decree No 231/2002 create a series of additional obligations for the vendor over and above those provided for by Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/35/EC. The Commission therefore considers that those conditions are contrary to Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/35/EC.

      (1)  OJ L 200 of 8.8.2000, p. 35.


title: Case C-163/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 January 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 343 TFEU — Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union — Article 3 — Tax exemptions — Brussels-Capital Region — Contributions in respect of the supply of electricity and gas)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 January 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-163/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 343 TFEU - Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union - Article 3 - Tax exemptions - Brussels-Capital Region - Contributions in respect of the supply of electricity and gas))
   (2016/C 098/05)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and I. Martínez del Peral, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C Halleux, S. Vanrie and T. Materne, Agents, assisted by G. Block, D. Remy and H. Delahaije, avocats)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by not exempting the EU institutions from the contributions laid down by Article 26 of the Order concerning the organisation of the electricity market in the Brussels-Capital Region and by Article 20 of the Order concerning the organisation of the gas market in the Brussels-Capital Region, as amended, and by objecting to the refund of the contributions thereby collected by the Brussels-Capital Region, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 3 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, originally annexed to the Treaty establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the European Communities, and subsequently under the Treaty of Lisbon, as Protocol No 7, annexed to the TEU, the TFEU and the Euratom Treaty;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.


title: Case T-15/10 R II R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Noko Ngele v Commission (Interim Relief — Application for Interim Measures — New Application — Inadmissibility)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/41

      Order of the President of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Noko Ngele v Commission
      (Case T-15/10 R II R)
      (Interim Relief - Application for Interim Measures - New Application - Inadmissibility)
      (2010/C 288/79)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Mariyus Noko Ngele (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Sabakunzi, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes, Agent)

         Re:

      Application for, in essence, a declaration that the Commission minutes of 27 May 2009 ((2009) 1874 final) are unlawful, in so far as it appears therein that the Commission decided to grant legal assistance to one of its former members and to a number of its agents.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed;

                  2.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-633/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 December 2013 — Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/7

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 December 2013 — Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej
      (Case C-633/13)
      (2014/C 71/11)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Najwyższy

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji

         Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

         Question referred

      Must Article 13(1) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of obligations relating to price controls, national regulatory authorities may impose on operators with significant market power an obligation consisting in a prohibition on the application of excessive voice call termination rates in the telephone network of such operators?

         (1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7.


title: Case C-302/01: Action brought on 27 July 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
15.9.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 259/3
—     since the French authorities have intended to implement          The Commission also considers that the enactment of a
      the requirements flowing from Article 19(4) of the               transitional period after the date of expiry of the time-limit for
      directive by means of a ‘public information sheet’, it is        transposition of the directive is contrary to the obligations
      imperative for the sheet to include all the matters              under that directive.
      mentioned in that provision as incapable of being kept
      confidential.
                                                                       (1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.
                                                                       Action brought on 27 July 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Action brought on 27 July 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                (Case C-302/01)
                         (Case C-301/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 259/04)
                         (2001/C 259/03)
                                                                       An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 July
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before             2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 July            represented by Gotz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser, and Panos
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                    Panagiotopoulos, a national civil servant on secondment to its
represented by Gotz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser, and Panos               Legal Service.
Panagiotopoulos, a national civil servant on secondment to its
Legal Service.
                                                                       The Commission claims that the Court should:
The Commission claims that the Court should:                           —     declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to
                                                                             ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of in the
—     declare that, by restricting the extent of public infor-               commune of Epitalio without endangering human health,
      mation to the environmental impact study, laying down                  without risk to water, air, soil and plants and animals and
      a period for public consultation which cannot exceed                   without causing a nuisance through noise or odours, by
      15 days and providing for a transitional period which                  granting a permit for the operation of a waste disposal
      expired in October 1994, the Hellenic Republic has failed              (landfill) site which does not contain the necessary
      to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6 (2) and 12 of               information and by allowing that facility to operate
      Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the                without prior approval of an environmental impact study,
      assessment of the effects of certain public and private                the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      projects on the environment;                                           under Articles 4 and 9 of Council Directive
                                                                             75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as amended by Directive
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                          91/156/EEC, and Article 4 (2) of Council Directive
                                                                             85/337/EEC (2) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the
                                                                             effects of certain public and private projects on the
                                                                             environment;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Article 6 (2) of Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the environ-
ment provides that all the information gathered by the                 Pleas in law and main arguments
developer is to be made available to the public. Article 2 (2) of
Joint Ministerial Decision 75308/5512/90 provides for public
access to the environmental impact study only and to no other          Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended, provides that
information. The directive also provides that the Member               the Member States are to take the necessary measures to
States are to ensure that the public concerned is given the            protect human health and the environment from the harmful
opportunity to express an opinion before works begin. The              effects of the collection, transport, treatment, storage and
Commission takes the view that the period of 15 days set by            deposit of waste. Article 9 requires in addition that a permit
the joint ministerial decision is not in practice a reasonable         be granted by the competent authorities for every waste
period for the public to express its opinion.                          disposal installation.
 ---pagebreak--- C 259/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    15.9.2001
The Commission considers that the waste disposal (landfill) site           an environmental impact study where Member States consider
in Epitalio in the Prefecture of Ilia constitutes a danger to human        that their characteristics so require. However, while Joint
health and the environment in breach of the directive. The Greek           Ministerial Decision 69269/5387/90 which transposed this
authorities acknowledge the unsuitability of the site. The site            directive into Greek law provides that an environmental impact
operates without a permit, with the exception only of the                  study is required before works of that type can be carried out,
decision of the Prefect of Ilia of 18 March 1987 which grants              no study was drawn up for the installation at issue.
temporary permission for the installation to operate for six
months but contains no mention of the types and quantities of
waste or of the conditions of the site’s operation.
Under Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337/EEC, projects concern-              (1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
ing installations for the disposal of waste are to be subject to           (2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.


title: Action brought on 17 September 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-323/97)

text:
C 331/ 14              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    1 . 11 . 97
1 . Is Article 6 of the EEA Agreement to be interpreted as                   administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     meaning that the legal principles laid down by the                      the Seventeenth Commission Directive 94/32/EC (')
     Court of Justice in, inter alia, Joined Cases C-6/90 and                of 29 June 1994 adapting to technical progress
     C-9/90 Francovich are part of EEA law, so that a State                  Annexes II, III, V, VI and VII of Council Directive 76/
     can be liable in damages towards an individual for not                  768/EEC (2 ) on the approximation of the laws of the
     properly implementing Council Directive 80/987/EEC                      Member States relating to cosmetic products, the
     of 20 October 1980, on the approximation of the laws                    Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
     of the Member States relating to the protection of                      under that Directive;
     employees in the event of the insolvency of the
     employer ( l ), during the period in which the State was
     only party to the EEA Agreement and had not acceded              2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
     to the EU ?
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is
     Article 6 of the EEA Agreement to be interpreted as
     meaning that Directive 80/987/EEC as well as the
     legal principles which the Court of Justice laid down            Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set
     in, inter alia, Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90                   out in Case C-320/97 ( 3 ), the period prescribed in the
     Francovich prevail over domestic law if the State has            Directive expired on 30 June 1995 .
     not implemented the aforementioned directive in the
     proper way ?                                                     W OJ L 181 , 15 . 7. 1994, p . 31 .
                                                                      (2 ) OJ L 262, 27. 9 . 1976 , p . 169 .
                                                                      ( 3 ) See p. 13 of this Official Journal .
3 . If the answer to Question 1 is the negative, does a
     State 's accession to the EU mean that Directive 80/
     987/EEC as well as the legal principles which the
     Court of Justice laid down in Francovich prevail over
     domestic law even in regard to circumstances
     occurring during a period in which the State was only
     party to the EEA Agreement but before its accession              Action brought on 17 September 1997 by the Commission
     to the EU if the State has not implemented the                   of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
     aforementioned directive in the proper way ?                                                      Belgium
                                                                                (Case C-323/97)
(M OJL283 , 28 . 10. 1980, p. 23 .
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /27)
                                                                      An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                      before the Court of Justice on 17 September 1997 by the
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities, represented
Action brought on 17 September 1997 by the Commission                 by Pieter Van Nuffel, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                               Belgium                                Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal
                         ( Case C-322/97)                             Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                           ( 97/C 331/26 )
                                                                      The Commission claims that the Court should:
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice on 17 September 1997 by the                1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force, within the
Commission of the European Communities, represented                          period prescribed, the laws, regulations and
by Pieter Van Nuffel, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,                 administrative provisions necessary to comply with
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                   Council Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994
Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal                      laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                           the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in
                                                                             municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in
                                                                             a Member State of which they are not nationals ( ! ),
The Commission claims that the Court should :                                the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             obligations under that Directive;
 1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force, within
      the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and                 2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 1 . 11 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 331 / 15
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     necessary to comply with the Directive named in the
                                                                        Commission's application.
Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set                 (') OJ L 168 , 18 . 7. 1995, p. 14 .
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ L 384 , 31 . 12 . 1986 , p. 1 .
out in Case C-320/97 (2 ); the period prescribed in the
Directive expired on 31 December 1995 .
O OJ L 368 , 31 . 12 . 1994 , p. 38 .
(2) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.
                                                                        Action brought on 17 September 1997 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Federal
                                                                                Republic of Germany
                                                                                ( Case C-325/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /29 )
Action brought on 17 September 1997 by the Commission
 of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                          ( Case C-324/97)                              brought before the Court of Justice on 17 September 1997
                                                                        by the Commission of the European Communities,
                            ( 97/C 331/28 )                             represented by Klaus-Dieter Borchardt, of its Legal
                                                                        Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                                                                        also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before               Kirchberg.
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
17 September 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli of its Legal              The Commission claims that the Court should:
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                               1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the measures
                                                                               necessary to comply with Directives 94/39/EC ( ! ) and
                                                                               95/10/EC (2 ) within the period prescribed, the Federal
                                                                               Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    under the EC Treaty and those Directives;
                                                                        2 . order the defendant to pay the costs.
— declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     European Parliament and Council Directive 95/27/EC                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     of 29 June 1995 (') amending Council Directive
     86/662/EEC       on     the  limitation  of   noise  emitted       Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set
     by hydraulic excavators, rope-operated excavators,                 out in Case C-320/97 ( 3 ); the period prescribed for
     dozers, loaders and excavator-loaders ( 2) or, in any              transposition expired on 30 June 1995 .
     event, by not having communicated such measures, the
     Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                        O OJ L 207, 10 . 8 . 1994, p. 20 .
     under that Directive;
                                                                        (2 ) OJ L 91 , 22 . 4 . 1995 , p . 39 .
                                                                        (3 ) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        Action brought on 17 September 1997 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
Article 1 89 of the EC Treaty, in providing that a directive                                         (Case C-326/97)
is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the
Member State to which it is addressed, places Member                                                   ( 97/C 331 /30 )
States under an obligation to comply with the time-limits
set by directives for their implementation. In the present
case, when the time-limit expired on 31 December 1995 ,                 An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
the Italian Republic had not adopted the measures                        before the Court of Justice on 17 September 1997 by the


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 14 May 1998 in the case of Hans-Josef Schlebusch against Hauptzollamt Trier (Case C-273/98)

text:
5.9.98                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 278/29
31 March 1998, which were received at the Court                       Action brought on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the
Registry on 20 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the                 European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
cases of Salvat Editores SA and J. CompanÄ Calbuig                                              (Case C-274/98)
(C-265/98), Salvat Editores SA and G. Caminati (C-266/
98), OceÂano Grupo Editorial SA and R. Bogas CardenÄosa                                          (98/C 278/54)
(Case C-267/98), OceÂano Grupo Editorial SA and M.
Casas MingueÂlez (C-268/98), Planeta CreÂdito SA and A.
Villar Castelao (C-269/98), Artel SA and P. López Aznar               An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
(C-270/98), Salvat Editores SA and J. A. Serrano Garrido              before the Court of Justice on 17 July 1998 by the
(C-271/98), and Artel SA and F. Arencom Salazar (C-272/               Commission of the European Communities, represented
98).                                                                  by Eric Gippini Fournier and Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
                                                                      of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
                                                                      service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                      Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The grounds of the order for reference and the question
on which a ruling is sought by Juzgado de Primera
Instancia No 35, Barcelona, are similar to those in Joined            The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98 (1).
                                                                      Ð declare that, by failing to establish action programmes
                                                                           pursuant to Article 5 of Council Directive 91/676/EEC
( ) See p. 21 of this Official Journal.
 1
                                                                           of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of
                                                                           waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
                                                                           agricultural sources (1), the Kingdom of Spain has
                                                                           failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
                                                                      Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
by order of that court of 14 May 1998 in the case of                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      Hans-Josef Schlebusch against Hauptzollamt Trier
                         (Case C-273/98)                              The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 189
                                                                      and of Article 5 of the EC Treaty means that Member
                           (98/C 278/53)                              States must adopt the measures necessary to give effect to
                                                                      the Directive before the end of the period appointed for
                                                                      that purpose. Since the initial designation of vulnerable
                                                                      zones was to be effected within two years after
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                notification of the Directive (Article 3(2)), the period for
European Communities by order of the Seventh Senate of                drawing up the action programmes provided for in
the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 14 May                 Article 5 expired in December 1995.
1998, received at the Court Registry on 20 July 1998, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Hans-Josef Schlebusch
                                                                      (1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1; corrigendum: OJ L 92,
against Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office) Trier on                  16.4.1993, p. 51.
the following question:
Is the first sentence of Article 3a(3) of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 857/84 (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC)
No 1639/91 (2), to be interpreted as meaning that a milk
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by Klagenñvnet
producer is to be allocated a definitive special reference
                                                                      for Udbud, by an order of 15 July 1998 in the case
quantity even where, in the period laid down in that
                                                                      of Unitron Scandinavia A/S and 3-S A/S, Danske
provision, he did not use the special reference quantity
                                                                      Svineproducenters Serviceselskab v. Ministeriet for
provisionally allocated to him for a corresponding increase
                                                                                Fùdevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri
in his milk production, but temporarily transferred to
another business that part of his milk quota corresponding                                      (Case C-275/98)
to the original reference quantity held by his business in                                       (98/C 278/55)
addition to the provisionally allocated special reference
quantity?
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of Klagenñvnet for
( ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 adopting general rules
 1
    for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of      Udbud (Danish Procurement Review Board), which was
    Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products          received at the Court Registry on 20 July 1998, for a
    sector (OJ L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 13).                                preliminary ruling in the case of Unitron Scandinavia A/S
(2) OJ L 150, 15.6.1991, p. 35.                                       and 3-S A/S, Danske Svineproducenters Serviceselskab v.
                                                                      Ministeriet for Fùdevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri (Ministry
                                                                      of Foodstuffs, Agriculture and Fisheries) on the following
                                                                      questions:


title: Decisions adopted by the Court at its meeting on 25 January 1995

text:
No C 54/2            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4 . 3 . 95
Decisions adopted by the Court at its meeting on 25 January       2.     For each of the cases assigned to them, the First and
                            1995                                  Fourth Chambers (to which four judges are attached ) will
                         95/C 54/03                               consist of the President, the Judge-Rapporteur and a third
                                                                  judge designated in accordance with the order on a list
                                                                  corresponding to the order of seniority, the starting point of
The Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted          which is to be moved on by one name at each general
the following decisions at its meeting on 25 January              meeting.
1995 :
                                                                  3.     For the purposes of determining the five judges who
Appointment of Presidents of Chamber                              are to sit in each case assigned to one of the large Chambers,
                                                                  namely the Fifth and Sixth Chambers (to each of which
Pursuant to Article 10 ( 1 ) of the Rules of Procedure the
                                                                  seven judges are now attached ), a list will be drawn up for
Court appointed for the period from 25 January 1995 to            the judicial year. That list will include all of the judges
6 October 1995 :
                                                                  attached to the Chamber, apart from the President, in the
                                                                  following order:
— Mr P. Jann as President of the First Chamber (in place of
     Mr R. Joliet, President of Chamber),                         (a ) the judges of the small Chamber to which four judges
                                                                        are attached, in order of seniority;
— Mr C. Gulmann as President of the Fifth Chamber (in
    place of Mr R. Joliet, President of Chamber ).                ( b ) the judges of the other small Chamber, in order of
                                                                        seniority.
Composition ofthe Chambers, attachment ofjudges to each
Chamber and rules governing their composition                     For each case, a large Chamber will consist of:
1 . The Court decided to retain the six existing Chambers,        — the President,
namely four Chambers consisting of three judges ('small
Chambers') and two Chambers consisting of five judges
                                                                  — the Judge-Rapporteur,
('large Chambers'). In order to take account of the present
number of members of the Court, two of the small
Chambers (the First and Fourth Chambers ) will have four
                                                                  — three judges designated according to the order shown on
                                                                       the list, the starting point of which is to be moved on by
judges attached to them and the two large Chambers will
                                                                       one name at each general meeting.
have seven judges attached to them.
The Court decided to attach the following judges to the
                                                                  In the event that one or more judges are prevented from
                                                                  acting, he or they will be replaced in accordance with the
following Chambers :                                              order on the list. However, in the event that the President of
— First Chamber:
                                                                  a large Chamber is prevented from acting, he will preferably
                                                                  be replaced by the President of the small Chamber.
    Mr Jann, President of Chamber
    Mr Joliet, Mr Edward and Mr Sevon, Judges,
                                                                  Where the Court or a Chamber considers that two or more
— Second Chamber:                                                 cases should be heard and determined together (whether or
    Mr Schockweiler, President of Chamber                         not they have been formally joined ), the composition of the
    Mr Mancini and Mr Hirsch, Judges,                             bench is to be that fixed for the first of the cases discussed at
                                                                  a general meeting.
— Third Chamber:
    Mr Gulmann, President of Chamber                              4.     For the period up to 6 October 1995, the lists referred
    Mr Moitinho de Almeida and Mr. Puissochet, Judges,            to above are to be as follows :
— Fourth Chamber
                                                                  First Chamber
    Mr Kapteyn, President of Chamber
    Mr Kakouris, Mr Murray and Mr Ragnemalm,
                                                                  (President: Mr Jann)
    Judges,
                                                                  Mr Joliet,
— Fifth Chamber: the judges attached to the First and
                                                                  Mr Edward, and
    Third Chambers, namely
    Mr Gulmann, President of Chamber
                                                                  Mr Sevon, Judges
    Mr Jann, Mr Joliet, Mr Moitinho de Almeida, Mr
    Edward, Mr. Puissochet and Mr Sevón, Judges,                  Fourth Chamber
— Sixth Chamber: the judges attached to the Second and            (President: Mr Kapteyn)
    Fourth Chambers, namely
    Mr Schockweiler, President of Chamber                         Mr Kakouris,
    Mr Kapteyn, Mr Mancini, Mr Kakouris, Mr Murray,               Mr Murray, and
    Mr Hirsch and Mr Ragnemalm, Judges.                           Mr Ragnemalm, Judges
 ---pagebreak--- 4 . 3 . 95           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 54/3
Fifth Chamber                                                      Messrs Norton Rose, Kempson House, PO Box 570,
                                                                   Camomile Street, London EC3A 7AN — the Court (Fifth
(President: Mr Gulmann)                                            Chamber), composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias
                                                                   (Rapporteur), President of the Court acting as President of
Mr Joliet,                                                         the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and D. A. O.
Mr Edward,                                                         Edward, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Mr Jann,                                                           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Mr Sevón,                                                          17 January 1995 , in which it:
Mr Moitinho de Almeida, and
Mr Puissochet, Judges                                              1 . sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                        9 July 1992 in Case T-66/89;
Sixth Chamber
                                                                   2. annuls Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision
( President: Mr Schockweiler)                                           89/44/EEC of 12 December 1988 relating to a
                                                                        proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty
Mr Kakouris,                                                            (IV/27.393 and IV/27.394, Publishers Association —
Mr Kapteyn,                                                             Net Book Agreements);
Mr Murray,
Mr Ragnemalm,                                                      3.   orders the Commission to bear its own costs and all the
Mr Mancini, and                                                         costs incurred by the appellant, both in the proceedings
Mr Hirsch, Judges.                                                      before the Court ofFirst Instance and in the proceedings
                                                                        before this Court, and the costs incurred before this
                                                                        Court relating to the intervention by Clé — The Irish
                                                                        Book Publishers Association and the Booksellers
                                                                        Association of Great Britain and Ireland;
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                4. orders Pentos Pic and Pentos Retailing Group Ltd to
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                  bear their own costs.
                     of 17 January 1995
                                                                   (!) OJ No C 288 , 5 . 11 . 1992 .
in Case C-360/92 P: Publishers Association v. Commission           (2 ) Case T-66/89, Publishers Association and the Commission,
              of the European Communities ( J )                         ECR II, p. 1995 .
 (Appeal — Competition — Net price system for books —
Rejection of an application for exemption under
Article 85 (3) — Indispensability of restrictions on
                         competition)
                          95/C 54/04
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                of 17 January 1995
In Case C-360/92 P: Publishers Association, whose head                    in Case C-93/94: Commission of the European
office is in London, represented by J. Lever QC, M. Pelling               Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands i 1 )
and R. W. R. Thompson, Barristers, and R. Griffith,                 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Council Directive
Solicitor, of Messrs Clifford Chance, with an address for          90/667/EEC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 8 Rue                                         period)
Zithe, supported by Clé — The Irish Book Publishers                                           ( 95/C 54/05 )
Association, whose office is in Dublin, represented by J. D.
 Cooke SC and R. Heron, Solicitor, of Messrs Matheson,
 Ormsby & Prentice, with an address for service in                                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe,
and by Booksellers Association of Great Britain and Ireland,        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
whose office is in London, represented by C. Quigley,                        published in the European Court Reports)
Barrister, and M. Nathanson, Solicitor, of Messrs
Penningtons, with an address for service in Luxembourg at           In Case C-93/94: Commission of the European
the Chambers of M. Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe — appeal against             Communities (Agent: Thomas van Rijn ) v. Kingdom of the
the judgment of the Court of First Instance ( Second               Netherlands (Agents: J. W. de Zwaan and J. S. van den
 Chamber ) of 9 July 1992 (2), seeking to have that judgment        Oosterkamp) — application for a declaration that, by failing
set aside, the other party to the proceedings being                 to adopt the measures necessary for the transposition of
 Commission of the European Communities (B. J. Drijber,             Council Directive 90/667/EEC of 27 November 1990 laying
Agent, assisted by N. Forwood QC), supported by Pentos              down the veterinary rules for the disposal and processing of
 pic, whose registered office is in London, and Pentos              animal waste, for its placing on the market and for the
 Retailing Group Ltd, whose registered office is in                 prevention of pathogens in feedstuffs of animal or fish
 Birmingham, both represented by R. P. Falkner, Solicitor, of       origin, and amending Directive 90/425/EEC (2 ), the


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2005 in Case C-132/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato in Ministero della Salute v Coordinamento delle associazioni per la difesa dell'ambiente e dei diritti degli utenti e dei consumatori (Codacons), Federconsumatori (Regulation (EC) No 1139/98 — Article 2(2)(b) — Additional labelling requirement for foodstuffs — Compulsory particulars concerning the presence of material derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) — Genetically modified soya beans and maize — Exemption from the requirement in the case of adventitious presence not exceeding a particular level — Foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional use — Infants and young children — Whether derogation applies — Precautionary principle)

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 26 May 2005
   in Case C-132/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato in Ministero della Salute v Coordinamento delle associazioni per la difesa dell'ambiente e dei diritti degli utenti e dei consumatori (Codacons), Federconsumatori (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 1139/98 - Article 2(2)(b) - Additional labelling requirement for foodstuffs - Compulsory particulars concerning the presence of material derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) - Genetically modified soya beans and maize - Exemption from the requirement in the case of adventitious presence not exceeding a particular level - Foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional use - Infants and young children - Whether derogation applies - Precautionary principle)
   (2005/C 271/04)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-132/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), made by decision of 25 March 2003, received at the Court on 28 January 2003 in the proceedings between Ministero della Salute and Coordinamento delle associazioni per la difesa dell'ambiente e dei diritti degli utenti e dei consumatori (Codacons), Federconsumatori, intervening parties: Lega delle Cooperative, Associazione Italiana Industrie Prodotti Alimentari (AIIPA), Adusbef — the Court (Second Chamber) composed of C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and R. Schintgen,, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General, M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 2(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1139/98 of 26 May 1998 concerning the compulsory indication on the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms of particulars other than those provided for in Directive 79/112/EEC, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 49/2000 of 10 January 2000, is to be interpreted as meaning that the exemption for which it provides from the obligation, laid down in Article 2(1) and (3) of that regulation, to state on the labelling of foodstuffs that material derived from certain GMOs is present, where such presence is the result of adventitious contamination and does not exceed a de minimis threshold of 1 %, also applies to foodstuffs intended for the particular nutritional use of infants and young children.

      (1)  OJ C 135 of 07.06.2003.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse Raad van State by judgment of that court of 25 October 1994 in the case of P. J. Huijbrechts v. Commissie voor de Behandeling van Administratieve Geschillen ingevolge Artikel 41 der Algemene Bijstandswet in de Provincie Noord-Brabant (Case C-131/95)

text:
24 . 6 . 95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 159/19
1 . Is there a prohibition of parallel imports otherwise than          4 . In the event that suspension of the implementation of
     on the basis of an authority given to an agent who is a               the decision is granted, is security still to be lodged to the
     provider of services and consequently by a purchase and               extent of the amount of the duty or does the possibility
     resale transaction ?                                                  exist of limiting it to a partial amount having regard to
                                                                           applicant's overall economic situation ?
2 . Is an independent dealer prohibited from acting as a
     provider of services as a free agent, and at the same time        (!) OJ No L 302 , 19 . 10 . 1992 , p . 1 .
     as a dealer inter alia carrying out parallel imports ?
3 . Is an independent dealer prohibited from selling new               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse
     vehicles and, in any case, what is the definition of 'new         Raad van State by judgment of that court of 25 October
     vehicle ' and ' second-hand vehicle '?
                                                                       1994 in the case of P. J. Huijbrechts v. Commissie voor de
                                                                       Behandeling van Administratieve Geschillen ingevolge
                                                                       Artikel 41 der Algemene Bijstandswet in de Provincie
                                                                                Noord-Brabant
                                                                                ( Case C-131/95 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches                                           ( 95/C 159/38 )
Finanzgericht by order of that court of 31 March 1995 in the
case of Bernd Emil Giloy v. Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                            Main — Ost                                 European Communities by a judgment of the Nederlandse
                                                                       Raad van State ( State Council of the Netherlands ) of
                         ( Case C-130/95 )
                                                                       25 October 1994 , which was received at the Court Registry
                           ( 95/C 159/37 )                             on 21 April 1 995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of P. J.
                                                                       Huijbrechts v. Commissie voor de Behandeling van
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 Administratieve Geschillen ingevolge Artikel 41 der
European Communities by an order of the Hessisches                     Algemene Bijstandswet in de Provincie Noord-Brabant
Finanzgericht ( Finance Court, Hesse ) of 31 March 1995 ,              ( Administrative Appeals Board for Disputes under
which was received at the Court Registry on 21 April 1 995 ,           Article 41 of the General Law on Assistance ), on the
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bernd Emil Giloy v.            following questions :
Hauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office ) Frankfurt am
Main — Ost on the following questions :                                1 . In the event that a Member State causes the grant of a
                                                                           benefit following on from an unemployment benefit, as
                                                                           in the case of Article 2 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( 3 ) of the Wet
1 . Are the two conditions set out in the second paragraph                 Inkomensvoorziening           Oudere       en     Gedeeltelijk
     of Article 244 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92               Arbeidsongeschickte Werklose Werknemers ( Law on
     of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community                         the Provision of Income for Elderly Unemployed
     Customs Code ( J ) ('the Customs Code '), namely:                     Workers and Unemployed Workers suffering from
                                                                           Partial Incapacity to Work, 'the IOAW'), to depend on
     — good reason to believe that the disputed decision is
                                                                           the requirement that benefit must have been received
          unlawful, or
                                                                           under the statutory unemployment provisions in force in
     — irreparable damage for the person concerned,                        the Member State during the whole period for which
                                                                           benefit was payable, should , as a result of Article 67 of
     completely independent of each other, with the result                 Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 on the application of
     that suspension of the implementation of a decision is                social security schemes to employed persons, to
     also to be granted where there is no good reason to                   self-employed persons and to members of their families
     believe that the payment order whose implementation is                moving within the Community ( in the consolidated
     sought to be suspended is unlawful but irreparable                    version set out in Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001/83 i 1 )) the
     damage is to be feared for the person concerned ?                     periods during which unemployment benefit was
                                                                           received in another Member State be regarded as periods
     If question 1 is answered in the affirmative :                        of insurance or of employment ?
                                                                       2 . If not, does the fact that, in assessing whether a
2 . Does the presence of the condition mentioned in the                    requirement laid down in Article 2 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( 3 ) of the
     second indent inevitably preclude a requirement to                    IOAW to the effect that benefit must have been received
     lodge security or is this subject to further conditions and,          during the whole period for which benefit was payable
     if so, which ?                                                        under the statutory provisions on unemployment in
                                                                           force in the competent Member State is satisfied, no
3 . Does the danger of losing one's employment — which                     account is taken of unemployment benefit received in
     may have possibly already materialized on account of                  another Member State constitute discrimination on
     the claim for duty having become due — constitute                     grounds of nationality within the meaning of Article 7 of
     ' serious economic or social difficulties ' even where the            the EEC Treaty (now Article 6 of the EC Treaty )?
     necessary minimum for subsistence is secured as a result
     of domestic legislation, for instance by social                   H OJ No L 230 , 22 . 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .
     welfare ?


title: Case T-22/00: Action brought on 27 January 2000 by Enrico Sabbioni against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 122/36               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     29.4.2000
— order the Council and the ECB to pay the costs.                         — annul the decision of the appointing authority of 10 Febru-
                                                                              ary 1999 refusing to recognise the occupational cause of
                                                                              his wife’s illness;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          — order the defendant to pay the fees and expenses incurred
                                                                              by the applicant in accordance with Article 23(2) of the
I. Against the Council’s decision                                             Rules on the insurance of officials of the European
                                                                              Communities against the risk of accident and of occu-
                                                                              pational disease;
    1. Infringement of the fundamental principle of protec-
         tion of legitimate expectations, infringement of the
                                                                          — order the defendant to pay the costs.
         principle of sound administration, deceit and total bad
         faith on the part of the Council
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
    2. Infringement of the fundamental principle of Com-
         munity law concerning the citizen’s right of access to
         documents and of Article 1 of Council Decision                   According to the applicant, his wife suffered a high degree of
         93/731                                                           exposure to contaminating agents during her working life, in
                                                                          particular exposure to asbestos while she was working in the
    3. Infringement of Article 253 of the EC Treaty: absence              ‘Berlaymont’ Building from 1974 to 1979. In his view, it
         of legal reasoning.                                              follows that the lung cancer of which his wife died had an
                                                                          occupational cause.
II. Against the ECB’s decision                                            In support of his claims, he alleges:
    1. Infringement of essential procedural requirements (lack            — that the opinion of the medical committee was unlawful.
         of reasoning) and misuse of powers
                                                                              The meeting of the medical committee took place under
    2. Infringement of the fundamental principle of trans-                    improper circumstances. The committee’s opinion did not
         parency and the right of access to documents.                        express a view as to certain important matters, was
                                                                              based on inaccuracies and showed no comprehensible
                                                                              connection between the medical findings and the con-
                                                                              clusions it contains;
                                                                          — unequal treatment and a manifest error of assessment.
                                                                              The Commission recognised the occupational cause of
Action brought on 24 January 2000 by Ivo Camacho-Fer-                         the disease of another official who developed pathology
nandes against Commission of the European Communi-                            absolutely similar to that of the applicant’s wife, following
                                ties                                          exposure to asbestos.
                          (Case T-20/00)
                         (2000/C 122/54)
                    (Language of the case: French)                        Action brought on 27 January 2000 by Enrico Sabbioni
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                          (Case T-22/00)
European Communities on 24 January 2000 by Ivo Cama-
cho-Fernandes, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by                                      (2000/C 122/55)
Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Becker & Cahen, 3
Rue des Foyers.                                                                               (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
— annul the Commission’s decision of 8 October 1999                       European Communities on 27 January 2000 by Enrico Sab-
    rejecting the applicant’s complaint lodged pursuant to                bioni, represented by Bruno Nascimbene and Marina S. Mori,
    Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the appointing         of the Milan Bar, and Massimo Condinanzi, of the Biella Bar,
    authority’s decision refusing to acknowledge the occu-                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
    pational cause of the lung cancer from which his wife died;           Franco Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz.
 ---pagebreak--- 29.4.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 122/37
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Commission Decision No 2749 of 12 October                        — annul the decision of the Commission of 13 December
    1999, and                                                                 1999;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 — order the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 109 921
                                                                              in performance of the supply contract;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          — order the Commission to pay default interest;
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.
The applicant in this case challenges the decision refusing to
allow him to file a statement with the Procura della Repubblica
(Public Prosecutor’s Office) at the Pretura Circondariale di
Varese (Varese District Court) concerning the disappearance of           Pleas in law and main arguments
24 autopsy specimens taken for the purposes of an expert’s
report, which it is impossible to repeat, in criminal proceedings
                                                                         The applicant, a company which successfully bid in response
pending before the Pretura di Foggia (Foggia District Court),
                                                                         to a call for tenders concerning a consignment of 15 000
and held in the radiochemical laboratory at the JRC in Ispra.
                                                                         tonnes of maize pursuant to Regulation No 990/98 of 11 May
                                                                         1998, contests a Commission decision refusing its request for
The contested decision justifies the refusal to allow the                payment of an additional sum of EUR 109 921,41 for the
applicant to file that statement with the Italian judicial               supply, which was furnished in accordance with the Regu-
authorities on the grounds that such refusal did not entail              lation. According to the Commission, deductions relating to
criminal consequences.                                                   undelivered quantities were calculated in accordance with the
                                                                         rules in force.
In support of his application, the applicant alleges:
                                                                         The applicant alleges that the Commission is thereby in breach
— Breach of Article 19 of the Staff Regulations;                         of its contractual obligations. It contests the figure taken by
                                                                         the Commission to be the final quantity on which to base
— Misuse of powers consisting, in particular, of a failure to            payment, and also the fact that it, the applicant, was deemed
    state reasons, distortion of matters of fact and of law, the         liable in respect of theft from its Niamey warehouses. The
    obvious inconsistency of the contested decision, and                 applicant also maintains that those thefts are accurately
    breach of the principles of sound administration, trans-             quantifiable; that it is easy to assign a value to the quantities
    parency, equal treatment, breach of the duty of the                  on which payment is outstanding; and that the applicant has
    Community and judicial authorities to cooperate in good              not been in a position to challenge the certificate of conformity
    faith and the principle of proportionality.                          because the wording is so ambiguous.
Action brought on 11 February 2000 by Société Lecureur                   Action brought on 15 February 2000 by Luis Borrego
SA against the Commission of the European Communities                             Alias against the Committee of the Regions
                         (Case T-26/00)                                                            (Case T-28/00)
                        (2000/C 122/56)                                                           (2000/C 122/57)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                          (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                An action against the Committee of the Regions was brought
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
European Communities on 11 February 2000 by Société                      on 15 February 2000 by Luis Borrego Alias, residing in
Lecureur SA, whose seat is in Paris, represented by Lise                 Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise
Funck-Brentano, Avocat, Paris, and Jean Villette, Avocat,                Parmentier and Véronique Peere, Avocats, Brussels, with an
Versailles, France, with an address for service in Luxembourg            address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of the Société
at the Chambers of Jacques Neuen, 1 Place du Théâtre.                    de Gestion Fiduciaire Sarl, 2-4 Rue Beck.


title: Case F-81/10: Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Praskevicius v Parliament

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/66

         Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Praskevicius v Parliament
   (Case F-81/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/108
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vidas Praskevicius (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Nelissen Grade and G. Leblanc, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the defendant’s decision not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted to grade AD6 for 2009 and [rejection] of the claim for non-material damage.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 21 June 2010 rejecting the applicant’s claim;

               —

               annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 24 November 2009, notified on 2 December 2009, not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted to grade AD6 for 2009;

               —

               inform the Appointing Authority of the effects of annulment of the contested decisions, in particular classification in grade AD6 and the retroactivity of promotion to grade AD6 from the date on which it should have become effective, that is to say, 1 January 2009;

               —

               grant the applicant EUR 500 in respect of compensation for non-material damage;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.