title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 25 June 1998 in Joined Cases T-14/97 and T-15/97, Sofivo SAS and Others v. Council of the European Union (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Beef and veal - Intervention mechanisms - Premium for the early marketing of veal calves - Average carcase weight - Criteria for fixing the same - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)

text:
C 278/36             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   5.9.98
offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, rue de Cessange v.                 Currall) Ð application for taxation of costs following
Council of the European Union (Agents: Diego Canga                   the judgments of the Court of First Instance in Joined
Fano and Marie-Jeanne Vernier) Ð application for                     Cases T-177/94 and T-377/94 Altmann and Others v.
annulment of the Council's decision, notified to the                 Commission [1996] ECR II-2041 and in Case T-99/95
applicant by note of 25 October 1995, to recover the                 Stott v. Commission [1996] ECR II-2227 Ð the Court of
equivalent of 91 working days from his salary for                    First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: A.
unjustified absences between 9 March 1994 and                        Kalogeropoulos, President, C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung,
15 February 1995 Ð the Court of First Instance (First                Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 25 June
Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, A.                   1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
Kalogeropoulos and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; B.
Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a           The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by the
judgment on 8 July 1998, the operative part of which is as           Commission to the applicants is fixed in the sum of GBP
follows:                                                             15 000, together with any VAT payable thereon.
1. The Council's decision of 25 October 1995 to recover              (1) OJ C 188, 9.7.1994, OJ C 392, 31.12.1994 and OJ C 286,
    the equivalent of 91 working days from the applicant's               28.10.1995.
    salary for unjustified absences between 9 March 1994
    and 15 February 1995 is partially annulled in so far as
    it concerns 58 days of allegedly unauthorised absence
    recorded during the period between 9 March 1994 and
    20 September 1994.
                                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2. The Council is ordered to repay to the applicant the                                     of 25 June 1998
    amounts unduly deducted from his salary Ð
    equivalent to 58 working days together with default              in Joined Cases T-14/97 and T-15/97, Sofivo SAS and
    interest at the rate of 5 % per annum as from the date                   Others v. Council of the European Union (1)
    when those amounts were first deducted.                          (Agriculture Ð Common organisation of the markets Ð
                                                                     Beef and veal Ð Intervention mechanisms Ð Premium for
3. The remainder of the application is dismissed.                    the early marketing of veal calves Ð Average carcase
                                                                     weight Ð Criteria for fixing the same Ð Action for
4. The Council is to bear its own costs and two-thirds of                             annulment Ð Inadmissibility)
    the costs incurred by the applicant.                                                     (98/C 278/81)
5. The applicant is to bear one-third of his own costs.                              (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.                                            In Joined Cases T-14/97 and T-15/97: Sofivo SAS,
                                                                     established at CondeÂ-sur-Vire (France), Sofivo Production
                                                                     SAS, established at BreÂceÂ (France), Sovinor SAS,
                                                                     established at CondeÂ-sur-Vire, Denkavit France sarl,
                                                                     established at Montreuil-Bellay (France), Sobeval Viande
                                                                     SA, established at PeÂrigueux (France), Serval SA,
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            established at Sainte-Eanne (France), Besnier Industrie
                       of 25 June 1998                               SNC, established at Bourgbarre (France), Sovida SA,
                                                                     established at ChaÃteaubriand (France), Ouest EÂlevage
in Joined Cases T-177/94 (92) and T-377/94 (92) and                  SICA, established at Ploudaniel (France), Guinde SA,
in Case T-99/95 (92), Henk Altmann and Others and                    established at Montauban (France), Tarbouriech SA,
Peter Edmond Stott v. Commission of the European                     established at Villeneuve-sur-Lot (France), Mamellor sarl,
                       Communities (1)                               established at Charnay-leÁs-MaÃcon (France), Coopagri
                      (Taxation of costs)                            Bretagne, established at Landerneau (France), Collet et
                                                                     Compagnie SA, established at ChaÃteaubourg (France),
                        (98/C 278/80)                                KermeneÂ SA, established at Saint-Jacut-du-MeneÂ (France),
                                                                     and Vals SA, established at Champagne (France),
               (Language of the case: English)                       represented initially by Deborah Kryvian and subsequently
                                                                     by Philippe Denesle, of the Rouen Bar, with an address for
In Joined Cases T-177/94 (92) and T-377/94 (92): Henk                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,
Altmann and Others and Margaret Casson and Others,                   11 rue Goethe, v. Council of the European Union (Agents:
represented by Rhodri Thompson, Barrister, of the Bar                John Carbery and Moyra Sims-Robertson), supported by
of England and Wales, 4 Raymond Buildings, Gray's                    Commission of the European Communities (Agent: GeÂrard
Inn, London, against Commission of the European                      Berscheid) Ð application for annulment of Article 1(4) of
Communities (Agent: Julian Currall) and in Case T-99/95              Council Regulation (EC) No 2222/96 of 18 November
(92): Peter Edmond Stott, represented by Rhodri                      1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the
Thompson, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales,                common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ
4 Raymond Buildings, Gray's Inn, London, against                     L 296, 21.11.1996, p. 50) Ð the Court of First Instance
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Julian                (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President, and R.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.9.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 278/37
García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung,                  Instance of the European Communities on 26 May 1998
Registrar, made an order on 25 June 1998, the operative            by EugeÂnio Branco L.da, whose registered office is at
part of which is as follows:                                       Lisbon, represented by Bolota Belchior, of the Vila Nova
                                                                   de Gaia Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
1. The applications are dismissed as inadmissible.                 the Chambers of Faltz & AssocieÂs, 6 rue Heine,
                                                                   Luxembourg.
2. The applicants shall bear their own costs and shall be
    jointly and severally liable to pay the costs of the
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
    Council. The Commission shall bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.                                            Ð annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, dated 17 February 1998, communicated
                                                                       and notified to the applicant on 17 March 1998 by
                                                                       the Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social
                                                                       Europeu (Department of European Social Fund
                                                                       Affairs, the DAFSE') by letter sent on 16 March
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              1998, to suspend payment of the ESF contribution in
                      (Fourth Chamber)                                 respect of files No 87301 P1 (PTE 43 550 366) and
                                                                       No 870302 P3 (PTE 5 809 712) granted to the
                        of 11 June 1998                                applicant by Commission Decision C(87) 860 of
in Case T-173/97, Augusto Fichtner v. Commission of the                30 April 1987,
                  European Communities (1)
(Officials Ð Late staff report Ð Promotion Ð                       Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
Comparative examination of the merits Ð Compensation
for damage Ð Application manifestly inadmissible or
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                     entirely unfounded)
                         (98/C 278/82)
                                                                   Ð Breach of the principles of the protection of legitimate
               (Language of the case: Italian)                         expectations and of legal certainty:
In Case T-173/97: Augusto Fichtner, an official of the                 Although the Commission's Decision does not lay
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                    down a time limit, it should nevertheless be adopted
Besozzo (Varese, Italy), represented by Vincenzo Salvatore,            within a reasonable period.
of the Pavía Bar, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia) Ð application
for (1) annulment of the Commission decision published                 It is clear that the period of 10 years which has
on 13 September 1996 in so far as it refused to place the              elapsed between the relevant date and the present is
applicant on the list of officials most deserving of                   excessive and far exceeds the limits dictated by
promotion under the 1996 promotions procedure and (2)                  common sense and normal expectations.
damages together with interest Ð the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh,                       The effluxion of that period engendered and
President, K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,               reinforced the applicant's legitimate expectation that it
Registrar, made an order on 11 June 1998, the operative                would adopt a decision approving the certificates
part of which is as follows:                                           issued by the DAFSE approving the claim for final
                                                                       payment submitted by the applicant.
1. The application is dismissed.
2. Each party is to bear its own costs.                                Since the Commission should have adopted its
                                                                       decision immediately after certification by the DAFSE
                                                                       had come to its knowledge, it is evident that the
(1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.
                                                                       period of 10 years (1988 to 1998) is excessive and
                                                                       exceeds the limits dictated by common sense and
                                                                       normal expectations.
                                                                       The Commission overstepped the rules of sound
Action brought on 26 May 1998 by EugeÂnio Branco L.da                  administration.
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-83/98)                                 If Member States are required to submit to the
                         (98/C 278/83)                                 Commission applications for payment within 10
                                                                       months from the end of programmes, failing which
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)                        they may not receive payment of the contribution
                                                                       concerned, then the Commission should issue its
An action against the Commission of the European                       decision approving that application for final payment
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      at least within as many months.


title: Case T-248/02: Action brought on 13 August 2002 by Carla Faita against Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities

text:
C 247/26               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    12.10.2002
Grounds of claim:              —      The Decision is in breach of         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                      Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                                      (EC) No 40/94: The Board of
                                      Appeal failed to draw the
                                      correct inferences from the          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                      cited evidence, misapplied
                                      the test of relevant public,
                                                                           The applicant, an official of the Economic and Social Com-
                                      failed to apply the law con-
                                                                           mittee of the European Communities, applied for the post of
                                      sistently and failed to pro-
                                                                           head of the Italian Translation and Transcription Division of
                                      vide proper reasoning.
                                                                           the Logistics and Translation Directorate. However, the Bureau
                               —      The Decision is in breach of         of the Economic and Social Committee rejected her application
                                      Article 7(3) of Regulation           and appointed another candidate to that post.
                                      (EC) No 40/94: The Board of
                                      Appeal failed to apply the           In support of her claim, the applicant alleges:
                                      test for acquired distinc-
                                      tiveness correctly, failed to        —     infringement of Article 29(1)(a) of the Staff Regulations;
                                      interpret the evidence associ-
                                      ated with various goods and
                                                                           —     infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;
                                      services correctly and did not
                                      provide adequate reasoning.
                                                                           —     manifest error of assessment;
                                                                           —     breach of the principle that officials should have reason-
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Com-                  able career prospects;
     munity trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
                                                                           —     abuse of process;
                                                                           —     breach of the duty to provide reasons.
Action brought on 13 August 2002 by Carla Faita against
Economic and Social Committee of the European Com-                         Action brought on 16 August 2002 by E against Com-
                             munities                                                  mission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-248/02)                                                           (Case T-251/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 247/42)
                         (2002/C 247/41)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (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
An action against the Economic and Social Committee of the                 European Communities on 16 August 2002 by E, residing in
European Communities was brought before the Court of First                 Brussels, represented by Laure Levi and Georges Vandersanden,
Instance of the European Communities on 13 August 2002                     lawyers.
by Carla Faita, residing in Brussels, represented by Albert
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      29 August 2001 fixing the applicant’s place of origin and
                                                                                place of recruitment as Brussels and refusing to grant her
—     annul the decisions of the Bureau of the Economic and                      the expatriation allowance, installation allowance, daily
      Social Committee of the European Communities to reject                     subsistence allowance, travel expenses and removal
      the applicant’s candidature for the post of head of the                    expenses relating to her taking up her duties at the
      Italian Translation and Transcription Division of the                      Commission on 16 July 2001.
      Logistics and Translation Directorate and to appoint
      another candidate to the post;                                       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-48/99: Action brought on 16 February 1999 by the Commission of the Europan Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 100/14             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10.4.1999
Action brought on 16 February 1999 by the Commission               Communities on 16 February 1999 by the Commission of
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of             the European Communities, represented by Dimitrios
                         Luxembourg                                Gouloussis, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos
                        (Case C-47/99)                             Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                       (1999/C 100/24)
                                                                   The Commission of the European Communities claims
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                that the Court should:
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 16 February 1999 by the Commission of               Ð declare that, by failing within the prescribed period
the European Communities, represented by Dimitrios                     to adopt, alternatively to communicate to the
Gouloussis, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an                    Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative
address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos              measures necessary in order fully to comply with
Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                            Council Directive 93/104/EEC of 23 November 1993
                                                                       concerning certain aspects of the organisation of
The Commission of the European Communities claims                      working time (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
that the Court should:                                                 has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and
                                                                       under that directive;
Ð declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
    adopt, alternatively to communicate to the                     Ð order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
    Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative               costs.
    measures necessary in order fully to comply with
    Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the
    protection of young persons at work (1), the Grand             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
    Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
    obligations under the EC Treaty and under that
    directive;                                                     Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
                                                                   directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                   upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
Ð order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                   Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
    costs.                                                         down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit
                                                                   in the present case expired on 23 November 1996 without
                                                                   the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg having brought into
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                 force the necessary provisions in order to comply with the
                                                                   directive referred to in the Commission's application.
Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,       (1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.
upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit
in the present case expired on 22 June 1996 without the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg having brought into force
the necessary provisions in order to comply with the
directive referred to in the Commission's application.
                                                                   Appeal brought on 12 February 1999 by Associazione
 1                                                                 Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB), Francesco Coccia and
( ) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 12.
                                                                   Vincenzo Di Giovine against the order made on
                                                                   8 December 1998 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended
                                                                   Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                   European Communities in Case T-38/98 Associazione
                                                                   Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB), Francesco Coccia and
                                                                     Vincenzo Di Giovine v. Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case C-49/99 P)
Action brought on 16 February 1999 by the Commission
of the Europan Communities against the Grand Duchy of                                     (1999/C 100/26)
                         Luxembourg
                        (Case C-48/99)
                                                                   An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of
                       (1999/C 100/25)                             the European Communities on 12 February 1999 by
                                                                   Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB), Francesco
                                                                   Coccia and Vincenzo Di Giovine, represented by Luigi
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                Filippo Paolucci and Gian Piero Galletti, of the Bologna
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2000 in Case C-423/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Napoli): by Alfredo Albore (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Articles 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) — Authorisation procedure for the purchase of immovable property — Areas of military importance — Discrimination on grounds of nationality)

text:
4.11.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 316/5
      Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on             Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) precludes national
      the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese              legislation of a Member State which, on grounds relating to the
      Republic, is in principle applicable where the defendant has its      requirements of defence of the national territory, exempts the nationals
      domicile or seat in a Contracting State, even if the plaintiff is     of that Member State, and only them, from the obligation to apply
      domiciled in a non-member country. It would be otherwise only         for an administrative authorisation for any purchase of real estate
      in exceptional cases where an express provision of that               situated within an area of the national territory designated as being
      convention provides that the application of the rule of jurisdic-     of military importance.
      tion which it sets out is dependent on the plaintiff’s domicile
      being in a Contracting State.                                         The position would be different only if it could be demonstrated to
                                                                            the competent national court that, in a particular area, non-
2.    The rules of special jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance    discriminatory treatment of the nationals of all the Member States
      set out in Articles 7 to 12a of that convention do not cover          would expose the military interests of the Member State concerned to
      disputes between a reinsurer and a reinsured in connection with       real, specific and serious risks which could not be countered by less
      a reinsurance contract.                                               restrictive procedures.
(1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.                                                     (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                              (First Chamber)
                            of 13 July 2000                                                             of 13 July 2000
in Case C-423/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   in Case C-456/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
    the Corte d’Appello di Napoli): by Alfredo Albore(1)                    the Pretore di Brescia): Centrosteel Srl v Adipol GmbH (1)
(Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital                        (Directive 86/653/EEC — Self-employed commercial agents
— Articles 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                       — National legislation providing that commercial agency
Article 43 EC) and 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC)                 contracts concluded by persons not entered in the register of
— Authorisation procedure for the purchase of immovable                                                 agents are void)
property — Areas of military importance — Discrimination
                     on grounds of nationality)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/09)
                           (2000/C 316/08)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                          In Case C-456/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretore di Brescia
In Case C-423/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               (Magistrates’ Court, Brescia), Italy, for a preliminary ruling in
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Corte d’Appello                 the proceedings pending before that court between Centrosteel
di Napoli, Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings               Srl and Adipol GmbH — on the interpretation of Council
pending before that court by Alfredo Albore — on the                        Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordi-
interpretation of Articles 6, 52 and 56 of the EC Treaty (now,              nation of the laws of the Member States relating to self-
after amendment, Articles 12 EC, 43 EC and 46 EC) and                       employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17) and of
Article 67 of the EC Treaty (repealed by the Treaty of                      the provisions in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of Title III of Part
Amsterdam) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                        Three of the EC Treaty concerning, respectively, freedom of
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-                 establishment and freedom to provide services — the Court
mann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), V. Skouris and F. Macken,              (first chamber) composed of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamb-
Judges, G. Cosmas, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                   er, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges, F.G. Jacobs,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment            Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 13 July 2000, in which it has ruled:                                     on 13 July 2000, in which it has ruled:


title: Case T-74/16: Action brought on 17 February 2016 — POA/Commission

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/31

         Action brought on 17 February 2016 — POA/Commission
   (Case T-74/16)
   (2016/C 145/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pagkyprios organismos ageladotrofon (POA) Dimosia Ltd (Latsia, Cyprus) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision Ares(2015)5632670, of 7 December 2015, of the Secretariat General, rejecting the confirmatory application submitted by the applicant by its letter dated 15 September 2015, in which the applicant, pursuant to (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), requested access to documents concerning the application of a Cypriot producer's organization for the registration of the denomination ‘Halloumi’ under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1), and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the legal fees of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission, relying on Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation No 1049/2001, has failed to give proper explanations why a decision-making process could be seriously undermined by the disclosure of the non-disclosed parts.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error in law as the reasons provided by the Republic of Cyprus to refuse disclosure on the basis of Article 4(2), second indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001 are inadequate.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the right to an effective remedy and the principle of transparency as the refusal of the Republic of Cyprus to disclose some of the documents at stake implies that the applicant is not in the position to understand the subject-matter of each non disclosed document.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging an error in law as a Member state cannot use article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation No 1049/2001 to refuse the disclosure of documents if the decision which could be undermined is that of an institution of the European Union.


title: Case T-465/16: Action brought on 23 August 2016 — Cotecnica v EUIPO — Visán Industrias Zootécnicas (cotecnica OPTIMA)

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/25

         Action brought on 23 August 2016 — Cotecnica v EUIPO — Visán Industrias Zootécnicas (cotecnica OPTIMA)
   (Case T-465/16)
   (2016/C 371/27)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Cotecnica, SCCL (Bellpuig, Spain) (represented by: J. Devaureix, J. C. Erdozain López and J. Galán López, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Visán Industrias Zootécnicas, SL (Arganda, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Cotecnica, SCCL

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘cotecnica OPTIMA’ — Application for registration No 13 292 479

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13/06/2016 in Case R 229/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the proposed evidence admissible;

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and case-law of the General Court, in particular, the judgment of 20 January 2009 in Case T-424/07, Pioneer Hi-Bred International v OHIM (OPTIMUM).


title: Case T-171/01: Action brought on 25 July 2001 by the Institut de l'Audiovisuel et des Télécommunications en Europe against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 303/18               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.10.2001
Trade mark or sign             Spanish trade marks ‘J. GIORGI’,                the performance of the INFORMS contract; consequently,
asserted by way of oppo-       ‘MISS GIORGI’, ‘GIORGI LINE’,                   order it to pay to IDATE the sum of Euros 503 662 by
sition in the opposition       registered for goods in Class 3                 way of damages;
proceedings:
Decision of the Oppo-          Dismissal of the opposition and           —     in any event, order the Commission to pay the whole of
sition Division:               party bringing opposition pro-                  the costs incurred by the applicant in the course of the
                               ceedings ordered to pay costs                   present action.
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the appeal and appel-
Appeal:                        lant ordered to pay costs
Grounds of claim:              Contrary to what is stated in the         Pleas in law and main arguments
                               contested decision, there is likeli-
                               hood of confusion between the
                               Community trade mark and the
                               trade marks of which the appli-           The applicants states that in the context of the Community
                               cant is the proprietor, since the         Trans-European Telecommunications Networks Programme it
                               differences between them to not           concluded a contract (Contract No 45504) concerning the
                               allow the consumer to differen-           INFORMS project (‘Dissemination of EuroISDN Benefits for
                               tiate between them.                       SMEs’) under which it agreed to organise, throughout the
                                                                         Member countries of the European Union, seminars aimed at
                                                                         informing and advising small and medium sized undertakings
                                                                         on the possible advantages of using the EuroISDN. In view of
                                                                         the size of the project, the contract called for the participation
                                                                         of subcontractors (‘partners’). Under the above contract, the
                                                                         Commission agreed to contribute, at the level of 50,85 %, to
                                                                         the financing of the total allowable costs borne under the
                                                                         contract, which include subcontracting costs.
Action brought on 25 July 2001 by the Institut de
l’Audiovisuel et des Télécommunications en Europe
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         Initially the Commission paid its contribution in respect of all
                                                                         the costs invoiced to the applicant by its subcontractors under
                         (Case T-171/01)                                 the above contract, but after an audit of the contract it claimed
                                                                         from the applicant a certain amount of the sum paid on the
                                                                         ground that a part of the subcontracting costs was not covered
                         (2001/C 303/31)                                 by the concept of allowable costs in as much as it had not
                                                                         actually been paid by the applicant to the subcontractors but
                   (Language of the case: French)                        is the subject matter of a set-off.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               The applicant disputes that interpretation and submits that, as
European Communities on 25 July 2001 by the Institut de                  regards the subcontracting costs borne under the INFORMS
l’Audiovisuel et des Télécommunications en Europe, estab-                contract, it was merely an intermediatory between the Com-
lished in Montpellier (France), represented by Mr Hugues                 mission and the other partners, since it merely paid back
Calvet, Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.               directly to the ‘partners’, at a rate of 50,85 % of the costs borne
                                                                         by them, the sums paid by the Commission by way of
                                                                         Community finance of the subcontracting in the INFORMS
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              project, which explains why all the subcontracting costs were
                                                                         invoiced to it and why it set off the amount corresponding to
                                                                         the financing which each individual ‘partner’ had to raise
—     declare and hold that ‘allowable costs’ within the meaning
                                                                         (the remaining 49,15 %). The applicant submits that the
      of Article 1.2 of Annex II to contract No 45504
                                                                         Community contribution must be calculated on the total cost
      concluded between the Commission and IDATE on
                                                                         actually borne under the INFORMS contract, which means, as
      28 March 1996 covers the whole of the costs invoiced to
                                                                         regards subcontracting, the total cost borne by the ‘partners’.
      IDATE by the ‘partners’ under that contract and, therefore,
                                                                         That amount corresponds to the total costs invoiced to the
      that the Commission is not entitled to claim from IDATE
                                                                         applicant, since, in that area, it merely centralised the accounts
      reimbursement of the sum of Euros 503 662 under the
                                                                         and played the role of intermediatory with regard to the
      above contract or, more generally, any sum at all;
                                                                         Commissions contribution.
—     in the alternative, declare and hold that the Commission
      infringed its duty of good faith and its duty to inform
      IDATE and thereby committed breaches of contract in


title: Case T-62/10 P: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2011 — Zangerl-Posselt v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Recruitment — Notice of competition — General competition — Non-admission to practical tests and orals — Conditions of admission — Diplomas required — Article 5(3)(a)(ii) of the Staff Regulations — Interpretation — Consideration of different language versions — Preparatory documents)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2011 — Zangerl-Posselt v Commission
   (Case T-62/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Recruitment - Notice of competition - General competition - Non-admission to practical tests and orals - Conditions of admission - Diplomas required - Article 5(3)(a)(ii) of the Staff Regulations - Interpretation - Consideration of different language versions - Preparatory documents)
   2011/C 311/79
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Brigitte Zangerl-Posselt (Merzig, Germany) (represented by: S. Paulmann, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 30 November 2009 in Case F-83/07 Zangerl-Posselt v Commission and applying for that judgment to be set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Ms Brigitte Zangerl-Posselt to bear her own costs and those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case T-459/07: Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics v Council (Dumping — Imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in China, Vietnam, Pakistan and the Philippines — Expiry of anti-dumping measures — Review — Like product — Data used to determine the injury — Analogue country — Community interest — Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009) — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/28

         Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics v Council
   (Case T-459/07) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in China, Vietnam, Pakistan and the Philippines - Expiry of anti-dumping measures - Review - Like product - Data used to determine the injury - Analogue country - Community interest - Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009) - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence)
   2013/C 252/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd (Hangzhou, China) (represented by: M. Gambardella and V. Villante, lawyers)

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

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and K. Talabér-Ritz, Agents); and by Osram GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Bierwagen, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines (OJ 2007 L 272, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by Osram GmbH;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Case C-217/04: Action brought on 24 May 2004 by the United Kingdom against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/8

         Action brought on 24 May 2004 by the United Kingdom against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union
   (Case C-217/04)
   (2004/C 201/15)
   An action against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 May 2004 by the United Kingdom, represented by Mark Bethell, acting as agent; assisted by Lord Goldsmith QC, Her Majesty's Attorney General; Nicholas Paines QC and Tim Ward, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 establishing the European Network and Information Agency (1) is invalid;

               —

               order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the United Kingdom's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The contested Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 460/2004, the ‘ENISA Regulation’) sets up a European Network and Information Security Agency (‘the Agency’) whose function is to provide guidance, advice and assistance to the Commission, the Member States and the business community on issues relating to network and information security within the scope of the ENISA Regulation. The United Kingdom supports the establishment of the Agency, but submits that article 95 EC does not provide a proper legal basis for doing so. The ENISA Regulation is concerned entirely with the creation of the Agency as a Community body; it prescribes the Agency's objectives and tasks and makes provision for its management and organisation and work programme; in addition it makes provision as to the Agency's budget, legal status, privileges and immunities and working languages. The provisions of the ENISA Regulation take effect entirely at the level of the institutional law of the Community.
   The United Kingdom submits that the legislative power conferred by article 95 EC is a power to harmonise national laws; it is not a power to set up Community bodies or to confer tasks upon such bodies. Such matters lie outside the scope of national law, and Community legislation which sets up such a body, or confers tasks upon it, cannot harmonise national law within the meaning of article 95.
   None of the provisions of the ENISA Regulation approximate, even indirectly, any provision of national law. On the contrary, the Agency is expressly precluded from interfering with the competencies of national bodies and the objectives and tasks of the Agency are expressed in article 1(3) to be without prejudice to the competence of Member States.
   The provisions of the ENISA Regulation therefore fall outside the power of harmonisation conferred on the Parliament and Council by article 95 and the only appropriate legal basis for such a measure could be article 308 EC.

      (1)  OJ L 077, 13.03.2004, p. 1.


C 166/20             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   30.5.98
decision of 26Ð27 January 1998 (the Decision') to issue            Ð it was given no opportunity to make representations
a regulation (the Regulation) which purports to reclassify              concerning the Regulation before the Nomenclature
for customs duty purposes a product imported by VTech                   Committee; and
from China known as the Smart Start Premier'. The
purported effect of the Regulation is to classify the Smart
                                                                    Ð the Decision effectively overturns the decisions of the
Start Premier for customs duty purposes as a toy' as
                                                                        Tribunal which is the duly constituted court
opposed to a game'.
                                                                        established by the United Kingdom. In so doing, it
The applicant submits in this regard that prior to the                  infringes the principles of legitimate expectations and
Commission's decision in this case it had twice                         legal certainty.
successfully appealed to the Value Added Tax and Duties
Tribunal in the United Kingdom against decisions of HM
Customs and Excise that products sold by the company
should be classified as toys'. Following the outcome of
those proceedings, the Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature
Section (T&SNS) of the Customs Code Committee of the                        Removal from the register of Case T-7/97 (1)
Commission considered the Smart Start Premier, a similar
product marketed by VTech, and announced its intention                                       (98/C 166/48)
to issue the Regulation.
The applicant submits that, in adopting the Decision, the           By order of 25 March 1998 the President of the First
Commission acted in breach of the EC Treaty, in                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
particular Articles 28 and 29, and of the Community                 Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Customs Code, and also in breach of Community law, as               Case T-7/97: Miguel Vicente-NunÄez v Commission of the
regards both substance and procedure.                               European Communities.
It understands that the Commission has referred to the              (1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.
Harmonised System Explanatory Notes (HSEN) as a
justification for the Regulation's classifyng the product as
an educational toy'. It submits that the HSEN do not
have binding force and that they cannot override the
provisions of the Common Customs Tariff (CCT) and its
General Interpretative Rules. Accordingly, inasmuch as the
Commission is purporting to classify a product in breach                  Removal from the register of Case T-170/97 (1)
of the Community Customs Code it is thereby also                                             (98/C 166/49)
purporting to alter autonomously the duties in the CCT
and acting in breach of Article 28 of the EC Treaty which
expressly provides that any such alteration of duties can           By order of 30 March 1998 the President of the Fourth
only be decided by the Council.                                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                    Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
From a procedural point of view, the applicant submits
                                                                    Case T-170/97: MichaeÈl Tavernier v European Court of
that:
                                                                    Auditors.
Ð the reasons for the issue of the Regulation have not
    been adequately explained;                                      (1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.


title: Case T-158/07: Action brought on 7 May 2007 — COFAC v Commission

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/36

         Action brought on 7 May 2007 — COFAC v Commission
   (Case T-158/07)
   (2007/C 155/65)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: COFAC — Cooperativa de Formação e Animação Cultural, crl (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: Luís Gomes, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of Commission Decision D(2004) 24253 of 9 November 2004, reducing the amount of the financial assistance granted by the European Social Fund (‘the ESF’) to the applicant by Decision C(87) 0860 of 30 April 1987 (file No 880707 P1);

               —

               an order that the Commission should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On 1 March 2007 the applicant was notified of the Commission's decision to reduce by EUR 25 291,75 the financial assistance granted to it by Decision C(87) 0860 of 30 April 1987, on the ground that ‘evidence has come to light of irregularities in the performance of certain vocational training actions co-financed by the ESF, … after the conclusion of the criminal prosecutions relating to the management and specific application of the aid granted … and after the adjustments to the costs and funding structures relating to the file in accordance with the judicial decisions or the audits/re-examinations carried out in respect of the bodies in question.’
   None the less, the Portuguese legal proceedings brought against the applicant ended in an inconclusive verdict that the prosecution was time-barred, from which of course no inference may be drawn as to any reduction.
   That having been said, the applicant has never been notified by the national authorities of any final preparation arising out of the audit or re-assessment, in the conclusions of which it played no part, and it has never been able to defend itself against the charges of failing to observe the criteria for costs and funding in the file.
   According to the settled case-law of the Court of First Instance, a Commission decision reducing or cancelling financial assistance granted by the ESF is capable of affecting the beneficiaries of that assistance directly and individually.
   The applicant has never been given the chance effectively to make known its views to the Commission on the reduction of the assistance, with the result that the Commission's contested decision is vitiated by unlawfulness and must, accordingly, be annulled.
   That decision was adopted in breach of the rights of the defence, which constitute a fundamental principle of Community law, according to which all addressees in respect of whom decisions may be adopted adversely affecting their interests to an appreciable extent must be placed in a position in which they can effectively make known their views on the matters on which the decision at issue was based.


title: Action brought on 29 December 1998 by Nippon Yusen Kaisha against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-213/98)

text:
13.3.1999             EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 71/33
(c) order the Commission to pay the Applicant's costs;            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     and
                                                                  The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
(d) order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the         those raised in Case T-191/98 (Atlantic Container Line
     Applicant in providing a bank guarantee or other             e.a./Commission).
     security in lieu of payment of the fine pending
     judgment by the Court.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                  Action brought on 30 December 1998 by Transportacion
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to              Maritima Mexicana S.A. de C.V. and Tecomar S.A. de
those raised in Case T-191/98 (Atlantic Container Line            C.V. against the Commission of the European
e.a./Commission).                                                                         Communities
                                                                                (Case T-214/98)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/63)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Action brought on 29 December 1998 by Nippon Yusen
Kaisha against the Commission of the European                     An action against the Commission of the European
                         Communities                              Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                  Instance of the European Communities on 30 December
                       (Case T-213/98)
                                                                  1998 by Transportacion Maritima Mexicana S.A. de C.V.
                        (1999/C 71/62)                            and Tecomar S.A. de C.V., represented by Alfred Merckx,
                                                                  Sinclair Roche & Temperley, and John Pheasant, Nicholas
                                                                  Bromfield and Matthew Levitt, Lovell White Durrant,
               (Language of the case: English)                    Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                  the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11, rue Goethe.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
Instance of the European Communities on 29 December
1998 by Nippon Yusen Kaisha, represented by Nicholas
                                                                  (a) annul the decision of 16 September 1998 relating to a
Forwood and Philip Ruttley QC of the English Bar and
                                                                       proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC
John Pheasant, Nicholas Bromfield and Matthew Levitt of
                                                                       Treaty (Case No IV/35.134-Trans-Atlantic Conference
Lovell White Durrant, Solicitors, with an address for
                                                                       Agreement);
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch &
Wolter, 11, rue Goethe.
                                                                  (b) in any event, annul the fines imposed on the
                                                                       Applicants or substantially reduce such fines by the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            amounts considered appropriate by the Court in all
                                                                       the circumstances;
(a) annul the decision of 16 September 1998 relating to a
     proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC          (c) order the Commission to pay the Applicants' costs;
     Treaty (Case No IV/35.134-Trans-Atlantic Conference               and
     Agreement);
                                                                  (d) order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
(b) in any event, annul the fine imposed on it or reduce               Applicants in providing a bank guarantee or other
     such fine by the amount considered appropriate by the             security in lieu of payment of the fine pending
     Court in all the circumstances;                                   judgment by the Court.
(c) order the Commission to pay the Applicant's costs;            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     and
                                                                  The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
                                                                  those raised in Case T-191/98 (Atlantic Container Line
(d) order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
                                                                  e.a./Commission).
     Applicant in providing a bank guarantee or other
     security in lieu of payment of the fine pending
     judgment by the Court.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeidshof, Antwerp by judgment of that court of 11 July 1997 in the case of Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen against Robert Engelbrecht (Case C-262/97)

text:
27 . 9 . 97               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 295/ 13
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht                      the basis for enforcement and if it can constitute the
Diisseldorf, by order of that court of 2 July 1997, in the                     basis for enforcement under the law of the State in
      case of Uwe Clees against Hauptzollamt Wuppertal                         which it was drawn up, albeit subject to the condition
                           ( Case C-259/97 )                                   that the court with jurisdiction to enforce it may
                                                                               refuse the creditor's application for enforcement if, as
                              ( 97/C 295/ 19 )                                 a result of objections to the basis for enforcement,
                                                                               there    are   doubts      as  to   whether  enforcement
                                                                               proceedings should be continued ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht                             If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative :
( Finance Court) Diisseldorf of 2 July 1997, received at the
Court Registry on 18 July 1997, for a preliminary ruling                   2 . Can an application for recognition of a decision or
in the case of Uwe Clees v. Hauptzollamt Wuppertal on
                                                                               authentic instrument submitted to a court having local
the following question:                                                        jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 32 ( 2 ) of the
                                                                               Brussels    Convention      be  rendered inadmissible   or
                                                                               unfounded by reason of the fact that, while appeal
Is Heading No 9705 of the combined nomenclature of                             proceedings ( Article 36 of the Brussels Convention )
Regulation (EEC ) No 2658/87 (*) in the version of Annex I                     are pending, the debtor has left the State in which the
thereto, as amended by Regulation ( EEC ) No 2472/90 ( 2 ),                    proceedings were instituted and his new place of
to be interpreted as meaning that as a rule motor vehicles                     residence is unknown ?
as collectors' pieces of historical interest:
      are required merely to be in their original state —
      without substantial changes to the chassis, steering or
       braking system, engine, etc .,
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeidshof,
                                                                           Antwerp by judgment of that court of 11 July 1997 in the
       at least 30 years old, and                                          case of Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen against Robert
                                                                                Engelbrecht
                                                                                ( Case C-262/97 )
— of a model or type which is no longer in production ?
                                                                                ( 97/C 295/21 )
(') OJ L 256 , 7 . 9 . 1987, p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ L 247, 10 . 9 . 1990 , p . 1 .                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by judgment of the Arbeidshof
                                                                           ( Higher Labour Court ), Antwerp, of 11 July 1997,
                                                                           received at the Court Registry on 21 July 1997, for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of Rijksdienst voor
                                                                           Pensioenen against Robert Engelbrecht on the following
                                                                           questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundes
gerichtshof by order of that court of 26 June 1997 in the                  1.   Is the view that a national court which concludes that
          case of Unibank A/S v. Fleming G. Christensen
                                                                                an applicable national provision requiring a migrant
                            ( Case C-260/97 )                                   worker's pension to be reduced ( such as Article 3 ( 1 )
                                                                                and Article 3 ( 8 ) of the Belgian Law of 20 July 1990
                               ( 97/C 295/20 )
                                                                                requiring the amount of the pension received by a
                                                                                migrant worker's spouse to be deducted from that
                                                                                worker's household pension, on the ground that the
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         spouse's pension is a benefit equivalent to a pension)
 European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof                         and considers that it is impossible to interpret that
 ( Federal Court of Justice ) of 26 June 1997, which was                        national rule in such a way as to eliminate the
 received at the Court Registry on 18 July 1997, for a                          unexpected adverse effects of the lack of coordination
 preliminary ruling in the case of Unibank A/S v. Fleming                       between social security schemes in the interests of free
 G. Christensen on the following questions :                                    movement of workers or holds that the application of
                                                                                that rule in the case in point constitutes an obstacle to
                                                                                free movement of workers, may not disapply the
 1 . Is a promissory note signed by a debtor without the                        relevant Belgian legislation, compatible with
       involvement of a public official —               such as the             Community law, in particular Articles 5 , 48 and 51
       gceldsbrev under Danish law ( Paragraph         478 ( 1 ) ( 5 ) of       of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing
       the Danish Law on the Administration            of Justice ) —           the European Economic Community and, more
       an authentic instrument within the                meaning of             specifically, the principles of free movement of
       Article   50     of the Brussels        Convention,    if that           workers and cooperation in good faith between the
       promissory note expressly specifies that it can serve as                 competent authorities ?
 ---pagebreak--- C 295/ 14                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27 . 9 . 97
2 . ( a ) Does the reasoning set out in paragraphs 21 to 31                 where by reason of force majeure goods in transit in
           of the judgment in Case C-165/91 Van Munster v.                  the course of export to third countries are repatriated
           Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen in respect of                        to the Member State of export, or are they limited to
           Question 2 comprehend the phrase ' unforeseen                    those cases where the goods were imported into a
           adverse effects of the lack of coordination between              different third country to that which was originally
           social security schemes'?                                        declared by the exporter to the competent authority ?
     ( b ) In the light of paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 of that
           judgment, is point 2 of the operative part of that           2.  In circumstances where :
           judgment to be interpreted as meaning that, where
           it is impossible to interpret an applicable provision
           of national law in such a way as to eliminate the                ( a ) by Commission Decision 96/239/EC ( 2 ) of
           adverse effects of its application in a specific                        27 March 1996 exports of beef from the United
           situation on free movement of workers, the                              Kingdom to third countries were prohibited;
           national court must apply that rule in full , or that
           the national court must disapply that rule of
           national law ?
                                                                            ( b ) bans on the importation of beef from the United
                                                                                Kingdom were also imposed by a number of third
                                                                                countries ;
3 . In the light of point 2 of the operative part of the
     judgment in Van Munster v. Rijksdienst voor
     Pensioenen and the case-law of the Court of Justice, is                ( c ) exporters of beef were at the time of the said
     it compatible with Community law, more particularly                           Decision in the process of carrying goods to third
     Article 5 , 48 and 51 of the Treaty, to take the view                         countries;
     that the national court may not disapply express,
     binding provisions of national law in order to
     eliminate the adverse effects :
                                                                            ( d ) the said exporters were forced to repatriate the
                                                                                beef to the United Kingdom;
     — of the application of the rule of national law to
           migrant workers who have exercised their right to
           free movement,                                                    ( e ) the exporters received advance-paid export refunds
                                                                                in accordance with Commission Regulations ( EEC )
                                                                                No 565/80 ( 3 ) and ( EEC ) No 3665/87 as amended
     — of the lack of coordination between social security                         in respect of the export transactions in issue; and
           schemes of different Member States ?
                                                                             ( f) the exporters suffered losses as a result of not
                                                                                being able to sell the beef on the export markets in
                                                                                question;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional
                                                                             are the exporters entitled to retain all or part of the
Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of                     export refund by reason of the general principles of
26 March 1997, in the case of The Queen against
                                                                             Community law and in particular force majeure,
Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte:
                                                                             legitimate expectations, proportionality or equity ?
                 First City Trading Ltd and another
                           ( Case C-263/97
                             ( 97/C 295/22 )                            3 . If answer to Question 2 is that the exporter is entitled
                                                                             to retain in principle some or all of the export refund
                                                                             in question are the exporters bound to give credit for
                                                                             any revenues derived from the disposal of the beef in
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             the United Kingdom ( for example where the original
 European Communities by an order of the Divisional                          vendor of the beef to the exporter was bound to
 Court, Queen's Bench Division, of 26 March 1997, which                       repossess the beef under a retention of title clause in
 was received at the Court Registry on 21 July 1997, for a                   the original contract of sale and where the vendor
 preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against
                                                                              repaid all or a portion of the original purchase price )?
 Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte:
 First City Trading Ltd and another, on the following
 questions :
                                                                        4.    Are either or both of Commission Decision 96/239/EC
                                                                              or Regulation ( EC ) No 773/96 ( 4 ) unlawful to the
 1 . Do Articles 23 and 33 of Commission Regulation                           extent that they do not provide for exporters in the
      No 3665/87/EEC H as amended apply to the case                           circumstances referred to in Question 2 above being


title: Case C-211/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 January 2008 — Herta Adam v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Condition provided for by the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Definition of work done for another State )

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/7

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 January 2008 — Herta Adam v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-211/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Condition provided for by the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Definition of ‘work done for another State’)
   (2008/C 64/08)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Herta Adam (represented by: S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 22 February 2006 in Case T-342/04 Herta Adam v Commission dismissing an action seeking the annulment of the Commission decision of 22 September 2003 refusing the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance provided for by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Ms Adam to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 13 November 1997 in Case C-248/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam): R. O. J. Grahame, L. M. Hollanders v. Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging (Social security - Incapacity for work - Periods of paid employment and periods treated as such - Military service - Part J, point 4, of Annex VI to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

text:
24.1.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 26/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  and of Part J, point 4(c), of Annex VI to Regulation
                                                                     No 1408/71, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
                      (First Chamber)
                                                                     No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992 (OJ L 136, 19.5.1992, p. 7)
                   of 13 November 1997                               Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
                                                                     (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L.
in Case C-248/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from            Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl,
the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam): R. O. J.                 Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Grahame, L. M. Hollanders v. Bestuur van de Nieuwe                   judgment on 13 November 1997, in which it has ruled:
               Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging (1)
(Social security Ð Incapacity for work Ð Periods of paid
employment and periods treated as such Ð Military                    1. Part J, point 4(a), of Annex VI to Council Regulation
service Ð Part J, point 4, of Annex VI to Regulation                     (EEC) No         1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
                    (EEC) No 1408/71)                                    application of social security schemes to employed
                                                                         persons, to self-employed persons and to their families
                        (98/C 26/01)                                     moving within the Community, as amended and
                                                                         updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of
                                                                         2 June 1983 and as adapted by Part VIII of Annex I
                                                                         to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of
               (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic
                                                                         and the adjustments to the Treaties, and Part J,
                                                                         point 4(c), of Annex VI to that regulation, as amended
                                                                         by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                         1992, are to be interpreted as meaning that periods of
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                         compulsory or enlisted military service completed with
                                                                         the Netherlands armed forces before 1 July 1967
                                                                         constitute periods of paid work' or of paid
In Case C-248/96: reference to the Court under Article 177               employment', or equivalent periods' or periods
of the EC Treaty from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te                    treated as such', completed in the Netherlands before
Amsterdam for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                    that date.
pending before that court between R. O. J. Grahame,
L. M. Hollanders and Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene
Bedrijfsvereniging on the interpretation and validity of             2. Periods of military service completed in the former
Part J, point 4(a), of Annex VI to Council Regulation                    Netherlands New Guinea must be regarded as having
(EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of                   been completed in the Netherlands for the purposes of
social security schemes to employed persons, to self-                    Part J, point 4(a), of Annex VI to Regulation (EEC)
employed persons and to their families moving within the                 No 1408/71.
Community, as amended and updated by Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ L 230,
22.8.1983, p. 6) and as adapted by Part VIII of Annex I to           (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the
Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and the
adjustments to the Treaties (OJ L 302, 15.11.1985, p. 23),


title: Case T-309/00: Action brought on 26 September 2000 by S.A. Cimenteries CBR against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
25.11.2000            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 335/49
Action brought on 26 September 2000 by S.A. Cimente-                     Action brought on 6 October 2000 by Associazione delle
ries CBR against the Commission of the European Com-                     Cantine Sociali Venete e della Cantina dei Colli Berici
                            munities                                         against Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-309/00)
                                                                                (Case T-315/00)
                        (2000/C 335/93)
                                                                                (2000/C 335/94)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 September 2000 by S.A.                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Cimenteries CBR, whose registered office is in Brussels,                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
represented by A. Vandencasteele and D. Waelbroeck, of the               European Communities on 6 October 2000 by Associazione
Brussels Bar.                                                            delle Cantine Sociali Venete e la Cantina dei Colli Berici,
                                                                         represented by Ivone Cacciavillani and Antonio Cimino, of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Venice and Padua Bars, with an address for service in
—     annul the implied decision of the Commission of 27 July            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert I.
      2000 refusing to pay the applicant interest on the sum of
      5 485 000 Euros, the principal amount of a fine wrongly            The applicants claim that the Court should:
      imposed by the Commission on 3 May 1995, at a rate of
      7,25 % for the period between 3 May 1995 and 24 May                —     annul the contested provisions and accordingly order the
      2000 and a rate of 9,25 % for the period between 25 May                   defendant to produce the requisite documents (by lodging
      2000 and 27 July 2000;                                                    them with the Court Registry);
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         —      order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Under Article 9 of its decision of 30 November 1994 in
Case IV (33.126 and 33.332) — Cement, the Commission
imposed a fine on the applicant for infringement of Article 85           The applicants in the present case challenge the refusal of the
of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC).                                    defendant to allow access to a number of document concerning
                                                                         the procedure determining compulsory distillation of table
The amount of that fine was reduced by judgment of the Court             wines for the year 1993/1994.
of First Instance of 15 March 2000 in Joined Cases T-25/95
and others (the ‘Cement’ judgment)
                                                                         The applicants observe that the validity of the compulsory
Following that judgment, the applicant requested the defendant           distillation in question, as a Community mechanism for
to repay the difference between the fine imposed and the fine            intervening on the wine market, has been at the heart of
as reduced by the Court of First Instance, plus interest on that         various disputes, which are still pending, before the ordinary
sum. The defendant subsequently repaid the principal amount              courts of law, administrative courts and the Community
but did not pay interest on that amount.                                 judicature.
The applicant regards that refusal as an implied decision                In support of their claims, the applicants allege infringement of
refusing to pay the necessary interest and challenges the                Article 1 of Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 8 February
lawfulness of that decision.                                             1994 on public access to Commission documents (1). In the
                                                                         present case, the conduct of the Commission is essentially
In support of its action the applicant relies on:                        evasive. After officially declaring, in the course of a dispute
                                                                         before the Court of Justice, that it had taken the definite
—     breach of the obligation to take the measures necessary            decision to impose on Italy the compulsory distillation
      to execute the judgment of the Court of First Instance, as         12 150 000 hectolitres, on the basis of objective reasons, it
      provided for in Article 233 EC;                                    did not allow private individuals access to the documents and
                                                                         the travaux préparatoires in order to determine the existence
—     infringement of the principle of proportionality;
                                                                         of those objective reasons and to assess them.
—     infringement of the principle prohibiting undue enrich-
      ment;
                                                                         (1) OJ 1994 L 46, p. 58.
—     infringement of the fundamental right to equal treatment.