title: Case F-53/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 July 2015 — WR (*) v Commission (Civil service — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Person treated as a dependent child — Person whom the official has a legal responsibility to maintain and whose maintenance involves heavy expenditure — Conditions for granting — Withdrawal of entitlement to the allowance — Recovery of overpayments under Article 85 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
20150731051616822015/C 270/58532014TFPC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150707434422Case F-53/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 July 2015 —  (
         *1
      ) v Commission (Civil service — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Person treated as a dependent child — Person whom the official has a legal responsibility to maintain and whose maintenance involves heavy expenditure — Conditions for granting — Withdrawal of entitlement to the allowance — Recovery of overpayments under Article 85 of the Staff Regulations)
   (
         *1
      )	Information erased within the framework of the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN4320120150707EN0058432442Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 July 2015 —  (
         *1
      ) v Commission
   (Case F-53/14) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Civil service — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Person treated as a dependent child — Person whom the official has a legal responsibility to maintain and whose maintenance involves heavy expenditure — Conditions for granting — Withdrawal of entitlement to the allowance — Recovery of overpayments under Article 85 of the Staff Regulations)’2015/C 270/58Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicants: (
         *1
      ) (represented by: V. Simeons, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr and A.-C. Simon)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decisions withdrawing the dependent person allowance granted to the applicant in respect of her mother and cover by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European institutions (JSIS) and annulment of the decisions to recover the sums overpaid.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Declares that  (
                  *1
               ) is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (
         *1
      )	Information erased within the framework of the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 421, 24.11.2014, p. 58.


title: Case T-68/99: Action brought on 5 March 1999 by NV TODITEC against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 160/28               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.6.1999
Action brought on 4 March 1999 by ‘K’ against the                         Action brought on 5 March 1999 by NV TODITEC against
         Commission of the European Communities                                  the Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-67/99)
                                                                                (Case T-68/99)
                         (1999/C 160/51)
                                                                                (1999/C 160/52)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                    (Language of the case: English)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 March 1999 by ‘K’, represented
by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2, rue du                 ties was brought before the Court of the First Instance of the
Fort Rheinsheim.                                                          European Communities on 5 March 1999 by NV Toditec,
                                                                          represented by Mrs Elke Ballon, with an address for service in
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr Koen De Vleeschauwer,
                                                                          6, rue Heindrich Heine.
— annul the decision of 15 May 1998 by which the
     appointing authority refused the request for assistance
     under article 24 of the Staff Regulations submitted by the           The applicant claims that the Court should:
     applicant on 20 March 1998 by note addressed to S. Smidt,
     Director-General of DG IX, pursuant to article 90(1) of the          — declare the application of NV Toditec admissible and well
     Staff Regulations,                                                        founded,
— annul the express decision rejecting the complaint lodged               — in consequence, order the Commission of the European
     by the applicant in the Secretariat-General of the defendant              Communities to pay NV Toditec the equivalent in euro of
     institution on 18 August 1998, the said rejection decision                the sum of 74 967 EUR, together with interest at the rate
     having been signed on 23 November 1998 by Mr Liikanen,                    of 7 % (legal rate applicable in Belgium) from 5 June 1998,
     Member of the Commission, and notified to the applicant
     on 4 December 1998,
                                                                          — order the Commission to pay the costs of the procedure.
— order the defendant to pay all the costs in any event.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, a Commission official whose son attended the               On 13 February 1996 the applicant, by entering into an
‘Clovis’ crèche in Brussels, submitted a request under article            agreement with the European Community, represented by the
24 of the Staff Regulations seeking the Commission’s assistance           Commission (DG III – Industry), undertook to carry out several
in connection with the procedure initiated in relation to                 tasks in a project called ‘Dissemination Coordination for OMI’
instances of paedophilia which had occurred in that crèche.               or ‘Discomi’ It was concluded within the framework of the
He requested, first, as a civil claimant, reimbursement of, and           Esprit Programme of the European Union. The overall objective
acceptance of responsibility for, all lawyer’s fees and legal costs       of the ‘Discomi’ project was to improve the visibility of ‘OMI’
incurred in the context of the procedure before the Brussels              (Open Microprocessor Systems Initiative) in general and of its
Public Prosecutor and, second, compensation for all damage                commercially available results in particular to the widest
suffered by his family and by him on account of the matters               possible audience, through the facilitation and co-ordination
giving rise to the criminal proceedings.                                  of various dissemination measures. The tasks were to be
                                                                          carried out by the applicant as coordinator in co-operation
By the contested decision, the defendant refused that request,            with other organisations. The duration of the contract was 12
maintaining that the matter did not fall within the scope of              months from 1 December 1995, divided into two phases
article 24 of the Staff Regulations, since it had no connection           (period I from 1 December 1995 to 31 May 1996; Period II
with the applicant’s position or duties.                                  from 1 June to 30 November 1996).
In support of his application, the applicant pleads infringement
of the Staff Regulations, particularly article 24, as well as             The applicant is based on the failure by the Commission to
failure to observe general principles of law, such as those               discharge its contractual obligations under the ‘Discomi’
relating to the right to fair hearing, the duty to have regard for        contract.
the welfare and interests of officials, the protection of legitimate
expectations and the obligation to provide a lawful and
relevant statement of reasons. According to the applicant, his            The applicants submits that the Commission wrongfully
grievance is that, by refusing the request for assistance —               refused to accept the costs that were submitted by the applicant
which was made, moreover, at the end of a procedure which                 in relation to the project. No reasons were given for the refusal,
did not comply with the basic rules generally applied and in              nor was the applicant given the opportunity to defend itself.
force in the defendant institution —, the latter contravened              The Commission was wrong in its assessment of the major
the rules and principles invoked.                                         efforts of the applicant and its employees to make the Discomi
                                                                          project a success. The contract was correctly executed by the
                                                                          applicant and all costs submitted by the applicant are justified.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.6.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 160/29
According to the applicant, the main errors of the Commission            By decision of 30 July 1998, the United Kingdom Secretary of
are:                                                                     State for Culture, Media and Sport suspended the relaying of
                                                                         the programme ‘Rendez-Vous Television’ on the ground that
— the reduction of the labour of the applicant,                          it manifestly and seriously infringed article 22 of Council
                                                                         Directive 89/552/EEC (the ‘Television Without Frontiers’
— the refusal to accept costs for third party assistance,                Directive, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’) (1). This was
                                                                         followed by the commencement of various proceedings before
— the refusal to accept ‘other costs’ and                                the United Kingdom courts; however, those proceedings did
                                                                         not prevent the entry into force of the Secretary of State’s
— the refusal to accept, for the period from 1 June 1996 to              Decision on 11 September 1998.
     30 November 1996, any of the costs submitted by the
     applicant.
                                                                         The Commission, having received notification of that decision,
                                                                         informed the United Kingdom authorities, by the contested
                                                                         decision, that the suspension measures in issue were compat-
                                                                         ible with Community law.
Action brought on 5 March 1999 by Eurotica Rendez-
Vous Television Danish Satellite (DSTV) A/S against the                  By the present application, the applicant seeks annulment of
         Commission of the European Communities                          that decision, on the ground that the United Kingdom has
                                                                         infringed the principles of non-discrimination and pro-
                         (Case T-69/99)                                  portionality in its interpretation of article 22 of the Directive.
                        (1999/C 160/53)
                                                                         The applicant maintains that, whilst article 22 of the Directive
                   (Language of the case: French)                        confers on the Member States extensive powers to assess
                                                                         whether television broadcasts include programmes which
                                                                         might be seriously harmful to minors, in particular where they
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                contain pornography or gratuitous violence, and despite
ties was brought before the Court of the First Instance of               the considerable leeway which the Member States enjoy in
the European Communities on 5 March 1999 by Eurotica                     interpreting that concept, they are none the less required, in so
Rendez-Vous Television Danish Satellite (DSTV) A/S, the                  doing, to observe Community law and, in particular, the
registered office of which is situated in Frederiksberg (Den-            principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.
mark), represented by Jean-Paul Hordies and Agnès Maqua, of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange.
                                                                         The measures taken by the United Kingdom authorities are:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Decision of the Commission of 22 December                    — discriminatory, since similar, if not ‘harder’, programmes
     1998, adopted on the basis of article 22 Directive                       are currently relayed on the territory of the United
     89/552/EEC, by which it decided that the measures                        Kingdom, some of them with the benefit of a United
     adopted by the United Kingdom authorities, prohibiting                   Kingdom permit,
     the relaying of the applicant’s programme within the
     territory of that country, are in conformity with Com-
     munity law,                                                         — contrary to the principle of proportionality, since the
                                                                              applicant has taken all possible measures — including, in
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                                   particular, those referred to in article 22 of the Directive
                                                                              — to protect minors, and
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         — contrary to article 59 of the EC Treaty.
The applicant, a special-interest television channel established
under Danish law, the majority interest in which is held by a
Luxembourg holding company, distributes and sells a tele-
vision programme which is relayed by satellite under the name
‘Eurotica Rendez-Vous Television’. It offers that service, in            (1) Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordi-
particular, to viewers in various Member States, including the               nation of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or
United Kingdom. The broadcasts begin at about 00.30 a.m.                     administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of
and finish at 5.00 a.m. Between 00.10 a.m. and 00.30 a.m.,                   television broadcasting activities (OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23;
the programme is relayed via the PAL system and in unencoded                 corrigendum: OJ L 331, 16.11.1989, p. 51).
form (for promotional purposes); from 00.30 a.m. to 5.00
a.m., the transmission is encrypted, inasmuch as the pro-
gramme then comprises three films of an erotic nature. The
transmission of the program and the content of what is
broadcast are strictly controlled.


title: Case C-305/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 24 June 2015 — Delta Air Lines Inc. v Daniel Dam Hansen, Mille Doktor, Carsten Jensen, Mogens Jensen, Dorthe Fabricius, Jens Ejner Rasmussen, Christian Bøje Pedersen, Andreas Fabricius, Mads Wedel Rasmussen, Nicklas Wedel Rasmussen, Thomas Lindstrøm Jensen, Marianne Thestrup Jensen, Erik Lindstrøm Jensen, Jakob Lindstrøm Jensen, Liva Doktor, Peter Lindstrøm Jensen

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/36

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 24 June 2015 — Delta Air Lines Inc. v Daniel Dam Hansen, Mille Doktor, Carsten Jensen, Mogens Jensen, Dorthe Fabricius, Jens Ejner Rasmussen, Christian Bøje Pedersen, Andreas Fabricius, Mads Wedel Rasmussen, Nicklas Wedel Rasmussen, Thomas Lindstrøm Jensen, Marianne Thestrup Jensen, Erik Lindstrøm Jensen, Jakob Lindstrøm Jensen, Liva Doktor, Peter Lindstrøm Jensen
   (Case C-305/15)
   (2015/C 294/46)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Delta Air Lines Inc.

      Defendants: Daniel Dam Hansen, Mille Doktor, Carsten Jensen, Mogens Jensen, Dorthe Fabricius, Jens Ejner Rasmussen, Christian Bøje Pedersen, Andreas Fabricius, Mads Wedel Rasmussen, Nicklas Wedel Rasmussen, Thomas Lindstrøm Jensen, Marianne Thestrup Jensen, Erik Lindstrøm Jensen, Jakob Lindstrøm Jensen, Liva Doktor, Peter Lindstrøm Jensen

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 to be interpreted as meaning that airline passengers may be entitled to compensation under the regulation more than once on the basis of the same reservation, when the flight on which the operating air carrier has rebooked the passenger is cancelled or delayed by more than three hours, with the result that the compensation under Article 7 of the regulation is not fixed but rather is contingent on the number of cancellations or on the scope of the cancellation and therefore delay?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, how is that to be reconciled with the principle laid down in the EU Court of Justice’s judgment of 19 November 2009 in Sturgeon and Others, C-402/07 and C-432/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:716, under which Article 5 of the regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed are to be treated as passengers whose flights are cancelled under the rules on compensation, when the EU Court of Justice held in its judgment of 23 October 2012 in Nelson and Others, C-581/10 and C-629/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:657 that delays of over three hours’ duration cannot be taken into account in the calculation of the fixed compensation?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 1998 in Case C-259/96 P: Council of the European Union v Lieve de Nil and Christiane Impens (Appeal - Officials - Internal competition - Measures implementing a judgment annulling a decision - Promotion to a higher category following a competition with no retroactive effect - Material and non-material damage)

text:
25.7.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 234/7
established at Groothusen-Krummhörn (Germany),                       President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F. Mancini and
represented by Professor Detlef Schumacher, Bremen, and              G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) Judges, M. B. Elmer, Advocate
Benno Grunewald, Rechtsanwalt, Bremen Ð appeal                       General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First           judgment on 14 May 1998, in which it:
Chamber) of 13 December 1995 in Case T-109/94
Windpark Groothusen v Commission [1995] ECR II-3007,                 1. Sets aside points 1, 2 and 4 of the operative part of
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to               the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
the proceedings being Commission of the European                          European Communities of 26 June 1996 in Case T-91/
Communities, represented by Jürgen Grunwald Ð the                         95 De Nil and Impens v Council;
Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
President of Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
(Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; G. Cosmas,                2. Dismisses the applicants' claim for compensation for
Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,                    non-material damage;
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May 1998,
in which it:                                                         3. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for
                                                                          judgment on the applicants' claim for compensation
                                                                          for material damage;
1. Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                     4. Reserves the costs.
2. Orders the appellant to pay the costs.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 269 of 14.9.1996.
( ) OJ C 108 of 13.4.1996.
 1
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         (Fifth Chamber)
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                                      of 14 May 1998
                       of 14 May 1998                                in Case C-364/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien): Verein für
in Case C-259/96 P: Council of the European Union v                  Konsumenteninformation v Österreichische Kreditversiche-
           Lieve de Nil and Christiane Impens (1)                                              rungs AG (1)
(Appeal Ð Officials Ð Internal competition Ð Measures                (Directive 90/314/EEC on package travel, package
implementing a judgment annulling a decision Ð                       holidays and package tours Ð Extent of protection against
Promotion to a higher category following a competition                           the risk of the organiser's insolvency)
with no retroactive effect Ð Material and non-material
                                                                                (98/C 234/13)
                           damage)
                        (98/C 234/12)                                               (Language of the case: German)
               (Language of the case: French)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       In Case C-364/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
         published in the European Court Reports)                    of the EC Treaty from the Bezirksgericht für
                                                                     Handelssachen Wien for a preliminary ruling in the
In Case C-259/96 P: appeal by the Council of the                     proceedings pending before that court between Verein für
European Union (Agents: Jean-Paul JacqueÂ, Diego Canga               Konsumenteninformation und Österreichische Kreditversi-
Fano and TheÂreÁse Blanchet) against the judgment of the             cherungs AG Ð on the interpretation of Council Directive
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 26 June 1996             90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package
in Case T-91/95 De Nil and Impens v Council [1996]                   holidays and package tours (OJ L 158 of 23.6.1990,
ECR-SC II-959, seeking to have that judgment set aside,              p. 59), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.
the other parties to the proceedings being Lieve de Nil, an          Gulmann, (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M.
official of the European Union, residing in Wolvertem                Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and
(Belgium) and Christiane Impens, an official of the                  L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate General;
Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels,                 L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure,                  given a judgment on 14 May 1998, in which it has ruled:
VeÂronique Leclercq and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices             Article 7 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June
of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, the                    1990 on package travel, package holidays and package
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,                    tours is to be interpreted as covering, as security for the


title: Action brought on 10 March 1998 by Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV against the Council of the European Union (Case T-43/98)

text:
16.5.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 151/9
Communities Ð the Court of First Instance (Third                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and                              of 24 March 1998
A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
25 March 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:          in Case T-232/97 Micheline Becret-Danieau and Others
                                                                                v. European Parliament (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Action for annulment Ð Remuneration
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                   statements Ð Inadmissibility Ð Time-limits Ð New
                                                                                substantial fact Ð Time-bar)
                                                                                (98/C 151/19)
2. Each party is to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
                                                                   In Case T-232/97 Micheline Becret-Danieau, Jeremiah
                                                                   Cadogan, Madeleine Mesenburg, Rainer Moriarty, Anne-
                                                                   Marie Nilles, Teresa Rodrigues, Fernando Simoes, Jean-
                                                                   Louis Spellini, Jeanne Pica-Borruto and Nicole Schulte,
                                                                   officials of the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                   Communities,       residing    respectively  in   Bertrange
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          (Luxembourg),         Steinsel     (Luxembourg),       Biwer
                                                                   (Luxembourg), Colmar-Berg (Luxembourg), Mamer
                       (Second Chamber)                            (Luxembourg), Mondercange (Luxembourg), Munsbach
                       of 12 March 1998                            (Luxembourg), Bascharage (Luxembourg), Thionville
                                                                   (France) and Leudelange (Luxembourg), represented by
in Case T-207/97: Georges Berthu v. Council of the                 Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier,
                     European Union (1)                            of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service at the
                                                                   offices of Fiduciaire Myson sarl, 30 Rue de Cessange v.
(Economic and monetary policy Ð Council Regulation on              the European Parliament (Agents: Manfred Peter and
certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro        Yannis Pantalis) Ð application for the annulment of the
Ð Replacement of the name ecu' provided for by                    express decisions rejecting the applicants' requests for
Article 109g of the EC Treaty by the name euro' Ð                 reimbursement of the sums deducted from their household
     Action for annulment Ð Manifest inadmissibility)              allowance pursuant to Article 67(2) of the Staff
                         (98/C 151/18)                             Regulations of officials of the European Communities on
                                                                   the ground of the household grant received by their
                                                                   spouses under the collective agreement covering
                                                                   Luxembourg bank employees, and, so far as may be
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   necessary, of the decisions of 15 May and 27 July 1997
                                                                   expressly rejecting their complaints, the Court of First
                                                                   Instance    (Second       Chamber),     composed   of:    A.
In Case T-207/97: Georges Berthu, Member of the                    Kalogeropoulos, President, C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung,
European Parliament, resident in Chelles (France),                 Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, made an order on 24 March
represented by Alexandre Varaut, of the Paris Bar, 9 Rue           1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
Alfred de Vigny, Paris, against Council of the European
Union (Agents: Jean-Paul JacqueÂ and Ignacio Díez Parra)
Ð application for the annulment of Council Regulation              1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
(EC) No 1103/97 of 17 June on certain provisions relating
to the introduction of the euro (OJ L 162, 19.6.1997, p. 1)        2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Ð the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of A. Kalogeropoulos, President, C. W. Bellamy            (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
on 12 March 1998, the operative part of which is as
follows:
1. The application          is  dismissed   as    manifestly
                                                                   Action brought on 10 March 1998 by Emesa Sugar (Free
    inadmissible.
                                                                       Zone) NV against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-43/98)
2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.                                               (98/C 151/20)
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                   An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
 ---pagebreak--- C 151/10              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.5.98
Communities on 10 March 1998 by Emesa Sugar (Free                   3. Article 240(1) and (3) of Decision 91/482/EEC
Zone), established in Oranjestad, Aruba, represented by                  precludes an amendment of that Decision after
G. van der Wal, lawyer with right of audience before the                 1 March 1995 or, at least, an amendment with effect
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, with an address for service                   from 1 December 1997;
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, of the
Luxembourg Bar, 31 Grand-Rue.                                       4. breach of the principle of legal certainty (principle of
                                                                         legitimate expectations): absence of transitional period
                                                                         and transitional measures;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    5. insufficient and incomplete statement of reasons.
1. annul Council Decision 97/803/EC (1) or, at least, the
    amendments to Articles 101, 102 and 108 of Council
                                                                    For the reasons set out in pleas 1 to 5 above, the applicant
    Decision 91/482/EEC (2) and to Article 6 of Annex II
                                                                    considers Decision 97/803/EC, or at least the restrictions
    to Decision 91/482/EEC and the insertion of
                                                                    on imports contained therein, to be a serious breach of
    Article 108b into Decision 91/482/EEC (paragraphs 27
                                                                    superior rules of law for the protection of the applicant's
    to 32 of Decision 97/803/EC);
                                                                    interests.
2. hold that the Community is responsible for the loss              The applicant brings this action as a separate action in
    suffered by Emesa as a result of the fact that the              addition to the application for annulment lodged by it
    importation of sugar from the OCT into the                      (T-44/98).
    Community has been prevented or restricted since
    1 December 1997 as a consequence of Decision 97/                (1) OJ L 329, 29.11.1997, p. 50.
    803/EC;                                                         (2) OJ L 263, 19.9.1991, p. 1. Corrigendum OJ L 15, 23.1.1993,
                                                                        p. 33.
3. order the parties to reach closer agreement as to the
    extent of Emesa's loss and, if no agreement can be
    reached in that respect, order the continuation of
    proceedings within a period to be specified by the
    Court of First Instance in order to determine the
    extent of the loss or, at least order the Community to          Action brought on 10 March 1998 by Emesa Sugar (Free
    pay the provisionally estimated and still to be                 Zone) NV against the Commission of the European
    estimated loss referred to in paragraphs 185 to 197 of                                   Communities
    the application; in the alternative order the                                          (Case T-44/98)
    Community to pay fair compensation, to be
                                                                                (98/C 151/21)
    determined by the Court of First Instance, plus interest
    at the rate specified in paragraph 97;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
4. order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.           An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 10 March 1998
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    by Emesa Sugar (Free Zone), established in Oranjestad,
                                                                    Aruba, represented by G. van der Wal, lawyer with a right
The applicant seeks compensation for the loss which it              of audience before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, with
claims to have suffered as a result of the restrictions on          an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
the importation of sugar of OCT origin introduced by the            A. May, of the Luxembourg Bar, 31 Grand-Rue.
decision referred to in point 1 of the forms of order
sought. It considers those articles to be contrary to               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Community law on five grounds:
                                                                    Ð annul the Commission's Decision of 23 December
1. breach of the locking mechanism', whereby                            1997 (VI/51329),
    Community law precludes the introduction by the
    Community of non-temporary restrictions on trade                Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the
    between the OCT and the Community, as a result of                    proceedings.
    which certain benefits laid down in the OCT decisions
    are (partially) withdrawn;
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2. breach of the principle of proportionality, since Ð in           In the aforementioned Decision the Commission informed
    so far as is justified in law and in fact Ð temporary           the Hoofdproductschap voor Akkerbouwproducten on the
    measures should be adopted, rather than permanent               basis of the third paragraph of Article 8 of Regulation
    structural restrictions;                                        (EC) No 2553/97 (1) that the applicant's application dated


title: Case C-105/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cuneo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Ivo Taricco and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Criminal proceedings concerning offences in relation to value added tax (VAT) — Article 325 TFEU — National legislation laying down absolute limitation periods which may give rise to impunity in respect of offences — Potential prejudice to the financial interest of the European Union — Obligation, for the national court, to disapply any provision of national law liable to affect fulfilment of the Member States’ obligations under EU law)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/11

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cuneo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Ivo Taricco and Others
   (Case C-105/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Criminal proceedings concerning offences in relation to value added tax (VAT) - Article 325 TFEU - National legislation laying down absolute limitation periods which may give rise to impunity in respect of offences - Potential prejudice to the financial interest of the European Union - Obligation, for the national court, to disapply any provision of national law liable to affect fulfilment of the Member States’ obligations under EU law))
   (2015/C 363/13)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Cuneo

      Parties in the main proceedings

   Ivo Taricco, Ezio Filippi, Isabella Leonetti, Nicola Spagnolo, Davide Salvoni, Flavio Spaccavento, Goranco Anakiev

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               A national rule in relation to limitation periods for criminal offences such as that laid down by the last subparagraph of Article 160 of the Penal Code, as amended by Law No 251 of 5 December 2005, read in conjunction with Article 161 of that Code — which provided, at the material time in the main proceedings, that the interruption of criminal proceedings concerning serious fraud in relation to value added tax had the effect of extending the limitation period by only a quarter of its initial duration — is liable to have an adverse effect on fulfilment of the Member States’ obligations under Article 325(1) and (2) TFEU if that national rule prevents the imposition of effective and dissuasive penalties in a significant number of cases of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union, or provides for longer limitation periods in respect of cases of fraud affecting the financial interests of the Member State concerned than in respect of those affecting the financial interests of the European Union, which it is for the national court to verify. The national court must give full effect to Article 325(1) and (2) TFEU, if need be by disapplying the provisions of national law the effect of which would be to prevent the Member State concerned from fulfilling its obligations under Article 325(1) and (2) TFEU.

               2)

               A limitation system applicable to criminal offences in relation to value added tax such as that established by the last subparagraph of Article 160 of the Penal Code, as amended by Law No 251 of 5 December 2005, read in conjunction with Article 161 of that Code, cannot be assessed in the light of Articles 101 TFEU, 107 TFEU and 119 TFEU.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.


title: Case T-35/99: Action brought on 8 January 1999 by Keller SpA in special administration and Keller Meccanica SpA in special administration against the Commission of the European Community

text:
C 121/18               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       1.5.1999
Action brought on 8 January 1999 by Keller SpA in                         In support of their claims, the applicants, which, following a
special administration and Keller Meccanica SpA in special                declaration of insolvency, are subject to special administration,
administration against the Commission of the European                     advance the following pleas:
                          Community
                                                                          — distortion of the facts and consequent misapplication of
                                                                              Article 92 in the evaluation of the loans on favourable
                         (Case T-35/99)                                       terms mentioned above, as regards in particular the
                                                                              inapplicability of Regional Law No 25/1993 to undertak-
                                                                              ings subject to special administration, the exclusive applica-
                        (1999/C 121/40)                                       bility of the aid regime provided for in Regional Law
                                                                              No 66/1976 to undertakings with fixed investments not
                                                                              exceeding ITL 7 000 million and a maximum of 100
                                                                              employees and the fact that the regime approved did not
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                            provide for machinery for adjustment of the aid par-
                                                                              ameters, in respect of which the amendments made to the
                                                                              implementing Directives should have been notified to the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     Commission,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 8
February 1999 by Keller SpA in special administration and                 — incorrect application of the Community guidelines regard-
Keller Meccanica SpA in special administration, represented by                ing restructuring aid, in that the contested decision stated
Prof. Diego Corapi, Vittorio Cappuccilli and Massimo Merola,                  that the plan for reorganisation of the applicant companies
of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                 could not be regarded as a genuine restructuring plan and
the chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 rue Albert Premier.                          that the intervention in question did not include measures
                                                                              designed to prevent improper distortions of competition,
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:             — incorrect calculation of interest for restructuring purposes.
— annul the contested decision,
— in the alternative, declare null and void the part of the
    contested decision concerning calculation of the interest
    payable on the sums to be recovered,
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  Action brought on 12 February 1999 by Dr Ugo Miranda
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-37/99)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (1999/C 121/41)
The applicant companies, forming part of the Keller Group,
specialising in the production of rolling stock and the provision
of services relating to the transport sector and distribution,                               (Language of the case: Italian)
take exception to the defendant’s decision of 1 July 1998,
adopted on conclusion of a procedure initiated pursuant to                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty, according to which:                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on
                                                                          12 February 1999 by Dr Ugo Miranda, represented by Luca G.
— the conditions under which loans on favourable terms                    Radicati di Brozolo, of the Milan Bar, with an address for
    were granted in the sum of ITL 33 839 million to Keller               service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Alex Schmidt, 7 Val
    SpA and of ITL 6 500 million to Keller Meccanica SpA do               Ste Croix.
    not correspond to those laid down for regional aid by
    Regional Law No 25/1993 of the Sicilian Region and                    The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
    Regional Law No 66/1976 of the Sardinia Region, both
    of which provide for an aid scheme approved by the
    Commission,                                                           — annul the contested decision,
                                                                          — order the Commission to pay the costs.
— the aid granted in the form of lower interest rates, equal to
    ITL 4 288 million, in favour of Keller SpA likewise does
    not comply with the Community guidelines on State                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    aid for the rescue and restructuring of undertakings in
    difficulties and could not benefit from any of the dero-
    gations provided for in Article 92(2) and (3) of the EC               The applicant, a retired official in receipt of a pension, is
    Treaty and mentioned in Article 51(2) and (3) of the                  challenging the Commission decision regarding recovery of
    EEA Agreement and are therefore incompatible with the                 the sums paid in December 1995 by way of resettlement
    common market.                                                        allowance.


title: Case T-364/00: Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Sophie Van Weyenbergh against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 61/16                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.2.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Sophie Van
                                                                         Weyenbergh against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
The pleas in law and arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case T-357/00 Martı́nez Alarcón v Commission.                                         (Case T-364/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 61/32)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Sophie Van
Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Luigia Dricot                      Weyenbergh, residing at Tervuren (Belgium), represented by
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     Carlos Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.
                         (Case T-363/00)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the decision dated 28 January 2000 of the selection
                          (2001/C 61/31)                                       board in competition COM/TB/99, deciding not to admit
                                                                               the applicant to that competition, and the implicit
                                                                               decision of the appointing authority dated 9 October
                                                                               2000 giving a negative response to the complaint submit-
                   (Language of the case: French)                              ted by the applicant;
                                                                         —     alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the applicant
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      the sum of BEF 2 941 667, subject to alteration during
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     the course of the proceedings, by way of compensation
European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Luigia                             for material and non-material damage;
Dricot, residing at Overijse (Belgium), represented by Carlos
Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.                                            —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the decisions dated 28 January 2000 and 24 Febru-            The pleas in law and arguments are similar to those put
      ary 2000 of the selection board in competition                     forward in Case T-357/00 Martı́nez Alarcón v Commission.
      COM/TB/99, deciding not to admit the applicant to that
      competition, and the implicit decision of the appointing
      authority dated 28 August 2000 giving a negative
      response to the complaint submitted by the applicant;
—     alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the applicant
      the sum of BEF 500 000, subject to alteration during the
      course of the proceedings, by way of compensation for              Action brought on 30 November 2000 by Scott S.A.
      material and non-material damage;                                    against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-366/00)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2001/C 61/33)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The pleas in law and arguments are similar to those put                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
forward in Case T-357/00 Martı́nez Alarcón v Commission.                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 30 November 2000 by Scott S.A.,
                                                                         a company registered in France, represented by Jeremy Lever
                                                                         QC and George Peretz, Barristers and Robin Griffith, Solicitor
                                                                         of Clifford Chance, London.


title: Action brought on 18 December 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland (Case C-469/98)

text:
13.3.1999            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 71/9
Action brought on 18 December 1998 by the Commission               II. Order Sweden to pay the costs of the present
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                      proceedings.
                           Sweden
                      (Case C-468/98)
                                                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                       (1999/C 71/15)                              in Case C-471/98 (5).
                                                                   (1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, pp. 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
                                                                   (2) OJ L 220, 29.7.1989, p. 1.
                                                                   (3) OJ L 278, 11.11.1993, p. 1.
An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought
                                                                   (4) OJ L 14, 22.1.1993, p. 1.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities            (5) See p. 10 of the present Official Journal.
on 18 December 1998 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Frank Benyon and
Christina Tufvesson, Legal Advisers in the Commission's
Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.
                                                                   Action brought on 18 December 1998 by the Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Finland
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case C-469/98)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/16)
I.  Declare:
                                                                   An action against the Republic of Finland was brought
                                                                   before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
    Ð that, by individually negotiating, signing and               on 18 December 1998 by the Commission of the
        concluding an Open Skies' agreement with the              European Communities, represented by Allan Rosas,
        USA in the air-transport sector, Sweden acted in           Principal Legal Adviser, and Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser,
        breach of the EC Treaty, including Articles 5 and          acting as Agents, with an address for service in
        52 thereof, and also contrary to the secondary             Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
        law adopted thereunder, in particular Regulation           Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
        (EEC) No 2407/92 (1) on licensing of air carriers,
        Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1) of 23 July
        1992 on access for Community air carriers to
        intra-Community routes, Regulation (EEC) No                The Commission claims that the Court should:
        2409/92 (1) of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for
        air services, Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 (2) of
        24 July 1989, as amended by Regulation (EEC)
        No 3089/93 (3) of 29 October 1993, on a code of            1. Declare that, by individually negotiating and
        conduct for computerised reservation systems, and               concluding in 1995 an open skies' air traffic
        Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 (4) of 18 January 1993                agreement with the United States of America, the
        on common rules for the allocation of slots at                  Republic of Finland is in breach of the EC Treaty,
        Community airports;                                             inter alia Articles 5 and 52 thereof, and of secondary
                                                                        law adopted on the basis of that Treaty, in particular
                                                                        Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July
                                                                        1992 on licensing of air carriers (1), Council
    Ð in the alternative, and in addition to the foregoing,             Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on
        that, in so far as the 1995 agreement cannot be                 access for Community air carriers to intra-Community
        regarded as having radically amended and thus                   air routes (2), Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92
        replaced agreements previously concluded, Sweden                of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services (3),
        infringed Article 234 of the EC Treaty, as amended              Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 of 24 July
        by Article 6 of the Act of Accession, by not                    1989 on a code of conduct for computerised
        rescinding the provisions in the agreement which                reservation systems (4), as amended by Council
        are incompatible with the EC Treaty, in particular              Regulation (EEC) No 3089/93 (5), and Council
        Article 52, and with the secondary law adopted                  Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on
        thereunder, or by failing to adopt all possible legal           common rules for the allocation of slots at
        measures to that end;                                           Community airports (6); and
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/10                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13.3.1999
2. Declare, in the alternative, in so far as the agreement                  Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (2) of 23 July 1992
     concluded in 1995 cannot be regarded as substantially                  on access for Community air carriers to
     amending the previous agreements and hence replacing                   intra-Community routes, Council Regulation
     them, that the Republic of Finland is in breach of                     (EEC) No 2409/92 (3) of 23 July 1992 on fares and
     Article 234 of the EC Treaty, having regard also to                    rates for air services, Council Regulation (EEC)
     Article 6 of the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland                  No 2299/89 (4) of 24 July 1989, as amended by
     and Sweden, by not eliminating the provisions of those                 Regulation No 3089/93 (5) of 29 October 1993, on
     earlier agreements which are contrary to the Treaty, in                a code of conduct for computerised reservation
     particular Article 52 thereof, and to secondary law                    systems,     and    Council     Regulation     (EEC)
     based thereon, and by not taking all possible legal                    No 95/93 (6) of 18 January 1993 on common rules
     measures to eliminate those provisions; and                            for the allocation of slots at Community airports;
3. Order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.                      Ð in the alternative, and additionally, declare, in so
                                                                            far as it considers that the 1995 agreement does
                                                                            not radically amend and therefore does not replace
                                                                            the agreements concluded previously, that Belgium
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                            is in breach of its obligations under Article 5 of
Case C-471/98 (7).
                                                                            the Treaty and under secondary law in not
                                                                            rescinding, in those previous agreements, the
(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 1.                                              provisions which are incompatible with the Treaty,
(2) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 8.                                              in particular Article 52, and with secondary law,
(3) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 15.                                             or by not taking all possible legislative measures to
(4) OJ L 220, 29.7.1989, p. 1.                                              that end;
(5) OJ L 278, 11.11.1993, p. 1.
(6) OJ L 14, 22.1.1993, p. 1.
(7) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.
                                                                    (2) order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 18 December 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                               Belgium
                                                                    Ð It is impossible, through the establishment of a
                         (Case C-471/98)                                common market in air transport, pursuant to
                                                                        Article 84(2) of the EC Treaty, to secure in full the
                          (1999/C 71/17)                                objective of a balanced market featuring undistorted
                                                                        competition unless the Community concludes with the
                                                                        United States an agreement covering areas such as
                                                                        those dealt with in the bilateral agreement in question,
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                    since the Community alone is competent in this
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 regard, pursuant to Opinion 1/76.
on 18 December 1998 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Frank Benyon,
Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                           Ð The bilateral Belgo-American agreement affects the
                                                                        objectives, scope and operation of the internal market
                                                                        in air transport as established by all of the joint
                                                                        Community rules which made its creation possible.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             That agreement governs in particular the granting of
                                                                        rights of access to and departure from the internal
                                                                        market and the granting of rights to carriers from
(1) Ð declare that, by negotiating, signing and                         non-member countries within the Community.
         concluding in 1995, and applying individually, an
         open skies' agreement with the United States in
         the air transport sector, Belgium is in breach of its
         obligations under the Treaty, in particular                    Pursuant to the judgment in Case 22/70 (AETR')
         Articles 5 and 52 thereof, and under secondary                 (confirmed in Opinions 2/92 and 1/94), Member
         law adopted pursuant to the Treaty, in particular              States can no longer assume obligations towards
         Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 (1) of                     non-member countries, whether individually or
         23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers, Council             collectively, if those obligations affect the rules of


title: Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Rupert Schlegelmilch against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-35/97)

text:
No C 142/ 18            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10 . 5 . 97
Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Anne-Marie                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Mathieu against the Commission of the European
                            Communities                                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                          ( Case T-34/97 )                             Case T- 16/97 (').
                           ( 97/C 142/38 )
                                                                       (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27 .
                  (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 24 February
1997 by Anne-Marie Mathieu, residing in Brussels,                      Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Liliane
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an            Waerzeggers against the Commission of the European
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                                                 Communities
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
                                                                                ( Case T-36/97)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                        ( 97/C 142/40 )
— annul the Commission 's decision of 20 June 1996
    rejecting the applicant's request that it give                                       (Language of the case: French)
    consideration to the possible application of Article 31
     ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                   Instance of the European Communities on 24 February
     adopted by the Commission on 22 November 1996                     1997 by Liliane Waerzeggers, residing in Holsbeek
    expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     ( Belgium ), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels
                                                                       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                            offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-16/97 (').                                                      — annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
                                                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
(>) OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                       consideration to the possible application of Article 31
                                                                            ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                       — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                            adopted by the Commission on 22 November 1996
                                                                            expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Rupert
Schlegelmilch against the Commission of the European
                             Communities                               — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                          ( Case T-35 /97 )
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                            ( 97/C 142/39 )
                  (Language of the case: French)                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                       Case T- 16/97 ( M.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .
Instance of the European Communities on 24 February
1997 by Rupert Schlegelmilch, residing in Brussels,
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
                                                                       Action brought on 26 February 1997 by Lucette Gerard
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996                                                 ( Case T-38/97)
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                                                 ( 97/C 142/41 )
     consideration to the possible application of Article 31
     ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                                     (Language of the case: French)
— annul , in so far as may be necessary, the decision
     adopted by the Commission on 22 November 1996                     An action against the Commission of the European
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 26 February
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                             1997 by Lucette Gerard, residing in Brussels, represented


title: Case T-688/14: Order of the General Court of 2 September 2015 — Airport Handling v Commission

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/61

         Order of the General Court of 2 September 2015 — Airport Handling v Commission
   (Case T-688/14) (1)

   (2015/C 381/85)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 January 2002 in Case T-207/00: Nuno Antas de Campos v European Parliament (Officials — Mobility scheme of the European Parliament — Inadmissibility)

text:
1.6.2002                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 131/17
2.    The remainder of the application is dismissed.                        2.   Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
3.    The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
In Cases T-357/00, T-361/00 and T-363/00:
1.    The applications are dismissed.
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
                                                                                of 25 January 2002
                                                                            in Case T-207/00: Nuno Antas de Campos v European
                                                                                Parliament (1)
                                                                            (Officials — Mobility scheme of the European Parliament
                                                                                — Inadmissibility)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2002/C 131/33)
                         of 20 February 2002
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
in Case T-117/01: Marcos Roman Parra v Commission of
                   the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Promotion — Complaint through official                         In Case T-207/00: Nuno Antas de Campos, an official of
            channels — Implied rejection — Reasons)                         the European Parliament, residing in Lisbon, represented by
                                                                            C. Botelho Moniz, lawyer, with an address for service in
                                                                            Luxembourg, against European Parliament (Agents: R. Da Silva
                             (2002/C 131/32)                                Passos and J.F. De Wachter) — application for annulment of
                                                                            the decision communicated to him by a letter of 30 March
                                                                            2000 by the Directorate General of Personnel, according to
                      (Language of the case: French)                        which he is subject to the mobility scheme for 2000 — the
                                                                            Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
                                                                            R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij,
                                                                            Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 25 January 2002,
                                                                            the operative part of which is as follows:
In Case T-117/01: Marcos Roman Parra, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Zaven-
tem (Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere,                     1.   The order is dismissed as inadmissible.
avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berar-
dis-Kayser) — application for annulment of the Commission’s                 2.   The European Parliament shall bear its own costs and pay one
decision not to promote him to Grade A 6 in the course of the                    half of those incurred by the applicant. The applicant shall bear
2000 promotion procedure — the Court of First Instance                           one half of his own costs.
(Single Judge: Mr H. Legal); Blanca Pastor, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 February
                                                                            3.   The parties shall bear their own costs incurred in the interlocu-
2002, in which it:
                                                                                tory proceedings.
1.    Annuls the decision of the Commission not to promote
      Mr Roman Parra to Grade A 6 in the course of the 2000                 (1) OJ C 302 21.10.2000.
      promotion procedure, as evidenced by the publication in
      Administrative Notices No 65-2000 of 14 August 2000 of
      the list of officials promoted to that Grade.


title: Case C-451/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, Chamber 2b, by judgment of that court of 28 June and 6 July 2000, in the case of Azienda Agricola Giuseppe Cantarello against Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo A.I.M.A. and the Ministry for Agricultural Policy

text:
C 61/2                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.2.2001
1.    In a dispute between an Italian national and a company            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
      established under Italian law having its registered office        Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, Chamber 2b, by
      in Italy arising from a contract of employment concluded          judgment of that court of 28 June and 6 July 2000, in the
      between them which designates Turin as the place of               case of Azienda Agricola Giuseppe Cantarello against
      work, is Munich the place where the employee habitually           Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo
      carries out his work under the second half-sentence of                  A.I.M.A. and the Ministry for Agricultural Policy
      Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention where, from the
      outset, the contract of employment is temporarily placed                                  (Case C-451/00)
      on non-active status at the request of the employee and,
      during that period, the employee carries out work, with                                    (2001/C 61/04)
      the consent of the Italian employer, but on the basis of a
      separate contract of employment, for a company estab-
      lished under German law at its registered office in Munich,       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      for the duration of which the Italian employer assumes            European Communities by judgment of the Tribunale Ammini-
      the obligation to provide accommodation in Munich or              strativo Regionale per il Lazio, Chamber 2b, of 28 June and
      to bear the costs of such accommodation and to bear the           6 July 2000, received at the Court Registry on 8 December
      costs of two journeys home each year from Munich to               2000, for a the preliminary ruling in the case of Azienda
      the employee’s native country?                                    Agricola Giuseppe Cantarello against Azienda di Stato per gli
                                                                        interventi nel mereato agricolo A.I.M.A. and the Ministry for
                                                                        Agricultural Policy on the following questions:
2.    If the first question is answered in the negative, may the
      employee, in a legal dispute with her Italian employer            (1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
      arising from the contract of employment, rely, with                     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
      reference to the payment of rental costs and travel costs               1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
      for the two journeys home each year, on the argument                    (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as
      that the court having jurisdiction is that for the place of             meaning that it is possible, in the case of Community
      performance of the obligation in question, pursuant to                  law proceedings and the subsequent compliance of the
      the first half-sentence of Article 5(1) of the Brussels                 Member State to derogate from the time-limits prescribed
      Convention?                                                             for the allocation of quotas and the operation of adjust-
                                                                              ments and levies?
                                                                        If not,
                                                                        (2) Are those provisions of Community law valid, in the light
                                                                              of Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do
                                                                              not provide for derogation from the periods prescribed
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-                       for allocation and adjustments in the abovementioned
gericht Hamm by order of that court of 15 November                            case of Community law proceedings?
2000 in the case of Deutscher Handballbund e.V. v Maros
                               Kolpak
                                                                        (1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
                                                                        (2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 is
                          (Case C-438/00)                                   meant (OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12).
                           (2001/C 61/03)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Oberlandesgericht
(Higher Regional Court) Hamm, Germany, of 15 November
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 28 Novem-             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
ber 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Deutscher             Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by decision of that court
Handballbund e.V. v Maros Kolpak on the following question:             of 1 November 2000 in the case of Kühne & Heitz N.V.
                                                                               against Produktschap voor Pluimvee en Meren
Is it contrary to Article 38(1) of the Europe Agreement
                                                                                (Case C-453/00)
establishing an association between the European Communi-
ties and their Member States, of the one part, and the Slovak
Republic, of the other part — Final Act — if a sports                                            (2001/C 61/05)
association applies to a professional sportsman of Slovak
nationality a rule it has adopted under which clubs may play            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
in championship and cup matches only a limited number of                European Communities by a decision of the College van
players who come from third countries not belonging to the              Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade
European Communities?                                                   and Industry) of 1 November 2000, which was received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 11 December 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                        in the case of Kühne Heitz N.V. v Produktschap voor Pluimvee
                                                                        en Eieren on the following question:


title: Case C-431/11: Action brought on 18 August 2011 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/26

         Action brought on 18 August 2011 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-431/11)
   2011/C 311/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Murrell, Agent, T. de la Mare, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision of 6 June 2011 (1) on the position to be taken by the European Union in the European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex VI (Social Security) and Protocol 37 to the EEA Agreement;

               —

               limit the temporal effects of such order until the Council adopts on the basis of Article 79(2)(b) TFEU a new Decision on the position to be taken by the European Union in the European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex VI (Social Security) and Protocol 37 to the EEA Agreement; and

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The United Kingdom seeks the annulment pursuant to Article 264 TFEU of Council Decision 2011/407/EU of 6 June 2011 on the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex VI (Social Security) and Protocol 37 to the EEA Agreement (‘the Decision’).
   The United Kingdom seeks an order that:

               (a)

               The Decision be annulled:

               (b)

               Following the annulment of the Decision, that its provisions should remain effective until the Council adopts a lawful Decision on the basis of Article 79(2)(b) TFEU on the position to be taken by the European Union in the European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex VI (Social Security) and Protocol 37 to the EEA Agreement; and

               (c)

               The Council pay the costs of the proceedings.

         The Decision, which was adopted on the substantive legal basis of Article 48 TFEU, determined the European Union's position to be adopted in the EEA Joint Committee negotiations as to the amendment of Annex VI (Social Security) and Protocol 37 to the EEA Agreement.
   The United Kingdom contends that the Council was wrong to adopt the Decision using Article 48 TFEU as the substantive legal basis. Instead, the Council should have based any such Decision on Article 79(2)(b) TFEU which provides the appropriate basis upon which to adopt a common position to conclude international arrangements whose effect in the EU is to extend social security rights to third country nationals. Article 48 TFEU provides competence only to legislate for EU national workers and the self-employed. Article 79(2)(b) by its express terms provides powers to confer rights upon third country nationals residing legally within the EU.
   Pursuant to Protocol 21 measures adopted pursuant to or under all Title V legal bases, including Article 79(2)(b) TFEU, apply to the United Kingdom only if it chooses to opt in to such measures.
   The annulment of the Decision is accordingly sought on the grounds that it was adopted on the wrong legal basis, the consequence of which is that the United Kingdom has been deprived of its rights under Protocol 21.

      (1)  Council Decision 2011/407/EU of 6 June 2011 on the position to be taken by the European Union within the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex VI (Social Security) and Protocol 37 to the EEA Agreement
   OJ L 182, p. 12


title: Case C-312/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 July 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 5 — Establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation — Persons with disabilities — Insufficient implementing measures)

text:
               24.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 July 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-312/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 5 - Establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation - Persons with disabilities - Insufficient implementing measures)
   2013/C 245/03
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and C. Cattabriga, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by C. Gerardis, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 5 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — National legislation providing for the application of that article through various measures, the application of which is itself dependent on the currently purely theoretical adoption of further measures — Insufficient guarantees and adjustments

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not introducing a requirement for all employers to make reasonable adjustments, where needed in a particular case, for all persons with disabilities, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation to ensure the correct and full implementation of Article 5 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.


title: Case C-118/99: Action brought on 12 April 1999 by the French Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
3.7.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 188/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Cour de                    The French Republic considers that the Commission has
Cassation (Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamb-                        infringed the principle of proportionality by applying a flat-rate
er), by judgment of that court of 6 April 1999 in the case                  correction of 2% on the basis that on-the-spot checks were of
of Union Nationale Interprofessionnelle des Légumes                         insufficient quality, even though the seriousness of the defects
Transformés (UNILET) and Gilles Le Bars against Associ-                     found in 1994 does not justify such a correction and it was
ation Comité Economique Régional Agricole Fruits et                         permissible for the Commission to carry out an assessment of
               Légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL)                                the actual risk incurred by the Guarantee Section of the
                                                                            European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. The
                                                                            French Government claims that the Court of Justice should
                         (Case C-117/99)                                    also annul Decision C(1999)209 final of 3 February 1999 on
                                                                            that point.
                         (1999/C 188/24)
                                                                            The French Government claims:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      — that Commission Decision 1999/187/EC should be
European Communities by judgment of the French Cour de                           annulled in so far as it concerns a flat-rate correction of
Cassation (Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber) of                        567.7 million francs. (1)
6 April 1999, received at the Court Registry on 9 April 1999,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Union Nationale
Interprofessionnelle des Légumes Transformés (UNILET) and                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Gilles Le Bars against Association Comité Economique
Régional Agricole Fruits et Légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL)
on the following question:                                                  The flat-rate correction of 2%, on the ground of the alleged
                                                                            insufficiency of the on-the-spot checks carried out under the
                                                                            support system for producers of certain arable crops (Council
Is Article 15b(8) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 (1) of the                 Regulation 1765/92), (2) is based on an extrapolation of
Council of 18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the                    weaknesses reveaed by a mission in situ; it rests on too small
market in fruit and vegetables to be interpreted as meaning                 and insignificant a sample and infringes the principle of
that, where a Member State has applied Article 15b(l) of that               proportionality. The French Government maintains that the
regulation, that is to say when it has made certain rules on                Commission has failed to carry out an assessment of the actual
production and marketing adopted by a producers’ organis-                   risk incurred by the Guarantee Section of the European
ation binding on producers established in the district who do               Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.
not belong to that organisation, it is entitled to exempt certain
non-member producers from the payment of those fees, in
respect of a given product, in so far as the goods produced by              (1) Commission Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February 1999 on the
                                                                                clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in
them are intended for industrial processing, rather than for                    respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of
marketing fresh.                                                                the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (OJ
                                                                                1999 L 61, p. 37).
                                                                            (2) OJ 1992 L 181, p. 12.
(1) OJ English Special Edition i 1972 (II), p. 437.
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary by the Tribunal d’lnstance
                                                                            (District Court), Paris 7th, by judgment of that court of
                                                                            30 March 1999 in the case of Hewlett Packard BV v
Action brought on 12 April 1999 by the French Republic                           Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-119/99)
                         (Case C-118/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 188/26)
                         (1999/C 188/25)                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by judgment of 30 March 1999 of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   Tribunal d’Instance, Paris 7ème, received at the Court Registry
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                on 12 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Communities on 12 April 1999 by the French Republic,                        Hewlett Packard BV v Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits
represented by Kareen Rispal-Bellanger, Deputy Director for                 Indirects on the following question:
International Economic Law and Community Law at the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Christina Vasak, Assistant                 Under the Common Customs Tariff, facsimile machines and
Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the same Ministry, acting as               printers do not fall under the same tariff heading. When a
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                    single machine is designed to perform several functions, the
French Embassy, 8b Boulevard Joseph II.                                     tariff heading is determined according to the principal function.