title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 May 1998 in Case T-309/94: NV Koninklijke KNP BT v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty - Liability for the infringement - Fine - Statement of reasons)

text:
C 209/30             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4.7.98
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                         O'Keeffe, Solicitor of the Law Society of Ireland, with an
                      of 14 May 1998                               address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                   Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v.
in Case T-304/94: Europa Carton AG v. Commission of                Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                the European Communities (1)                       initially, Richard Lyal and GeÂraud de Bergues, and
(Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð Proof              subsequently Richard Lyal and Guy Charrier) Ð
of participation in collusion Ð Fine Ð Turnover Ð                  application for the annulment of Commission Decision 94/
Determination of the amount Ð Mitigating circumstances)            601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                   Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard)
                       (98/C 209/63)                               (OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð the Court of First
                                                                   Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),
               (Language of the case: German)                      composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C. P. BrieÈt, P.
                                                                   Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio
                                                                   GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
In Case T-304/94: Europa Carton AG, established at
                                                                   judgment on 14 May 1998 in which it:
Hamburg, Germany, represented by Gerhard Wiedemann
and Wolfgang Kirchhoff, Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of            1. Dismisses the application.
Alex Bonn, 7 Val Sainte-Croix v. Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: Bernd Langeheine and
Richard Lyal, subsequently by Richard Lyal and Dirk                2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those
Schroeder) Ð application for annulment of Commission                    relating to the application for interim relief.
Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a
proceeding unter Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833          (1) OJ C 351, 10.12.1994.
Ð Cartonboard, OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð the
Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
of B. Vesterdorf, President of the Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt, P.
Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio
GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 14 May 1998 in which it:
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the eighth indent of                                 of 14 May 1998
     Article 1 of Commission Decision 94/601/EC of                         in Case T-309/94: NV Koninklijke KNP BT v.
     13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85                 Commission of the European Communities (1)
     of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard).
                                                                   (Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð
                                                                   Liability for the infringement Ð Fine Ð Statement of
2. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining                                          reasons)
     claims.
                                                                                (98/C 209/65)
3. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
( ) OJ C 351, 10.12.1994.
 1
                                                                   In Case T-309/94: NV Koninklijke KNP BT, established at
                                                                   Amsterdam, represented by Tom R. Ottervanger and
                                                                   Francis Herbert, advocates of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                   Carlos Zeyen, 56Ð58 Rue Charles Martel v. Commission
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                         of the European Communities (Agents: Richard Lyal and
                      of 14 May 1998                               Wouter Wils) Ð application for annulment of Commission
                                                                   Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a
in Case T-308/94: Cascades SA v. Commission of the                 proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/
                  European Communities (1)                         33.833 Ð Cartonboard, OJ 1994, L 243 of 19.9.1994,
(Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð                    p. 1) Ð the Court (Third Chamber, Extended
Liability for unlawful conduct Ð Fine Ð Statement of               Composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President of the
             reasons Ð Mitigating circumstances)                   Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D.
                                                                   Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the
                       (98/C 209/64)                               Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May 1998 in which
                                                                   it:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   1. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
In Case T-308/94: Cascades SA, having its registered office             by Article 3 of Commission Decision 94/601/EC of
at Bagnolet (France), represented by Jean-Louis Fourgoux,               13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85
Jean-Patrice de La Laurencie, Jacques Buhart, of the Paris              of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard) at
Bar, Jean-Yves Art, of the Brussels Bar, and David                      ECU 2 700 000.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.7.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 209/31
2. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining                   agreement or concerted practice which may have the
     claims.                                                            same or a similar object or effect, including any
                                                                        exchange of commercial information:
3. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay
     one-half of the Commission's costs.                                a) by which the participants are directly or indirectly
                                                                            informed of the production, sales, order backlog,
                                                                            machine utilisation rates, selling prices, costs or
4. Orders the Commission to bear one-half of its own                        marketing plans of other individual producers.
     costs.
                                                                        Any scheme for the exchange of general information
(1) OJ C 351, 10.12.1994.
                                                                        to which they subscribe, such as the Fides system or its
                                                                        successor, shall be so conducted as to exclude any
                                                                        information from which the behaviour of individual
                                                                        producers can be identified.'.
                                                                    3. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               by Article 3 of Decision 94/601/EC at ECU 730 000.
                       of 14 May 1998
in Case T-310/94: Gruber & Weber GmbH & Co. KG v.                   4. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                      claims.
(Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð Proof
of participation in collusion Ð Fine Ð Determination of             5. Orders the applicant and the Commission to bear their
the amount Ð Statement of reasons Ð Products                            own costs.
                concerned by the infringement)
                         (98/C 209/66)                              (1) OJ C 380, 31.12.1994.
               (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-310/94: Gruber & Weber GmbH & Co. KG,
established at Gernsbach-Obertsrot, Germany, represented
by Holger-Friedrich Wissel and Joachim Schütze,                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in                                 of 14 May 1998
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue
                                                                    in Case T-311/94: BPB de Eendracht NV (formerly
Goethe v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                    Kartonfabriek de Eendracht NV) v. Commission of the
(Agents: Bernd Langeheine, Richard Lyal and Dirk
                                                                                European Communities (1)
Schroeder) Ð application for annulment of Commission
Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a                    (Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð Rights
proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/                 of the defence Ð Proof of participation in collusion Ð
33.833 Ð Cartonboard, OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð                Information exchange Ð Order Ð Fine Ð Statement of
the Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),                    reasons Ð Determination of the amount Ð Cooperation
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President of the Chamber, C. P.                      during the administrative procedure)
BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J.
Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                                    (98/C 209/67)
given a judgment on 14 May 1998 in which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the eighth indent of
     Article 1 of Commission Decision 94/601/EC of                  In Case T-311/94: BPB de Eendracht NV, formerly
     13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85         Kartonfabriek de Eendracht NV, established at
     of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard).                  Appingedam, Netherlands, represented by Alexandre
                                                                    Vandencasteele, of the Brussels Bar, and Gordon Boyd
                                                                    Buchanan Jeffrey, Solicitor, Liverpool, with an address for
2. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the first to fourth
                                                                    service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt &
     paragraphs of Article 2 of Commission Decision 94/
                                                                    Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt v. Commission of
     601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                    the European Communities (Agents: initially Richard Lyal
     Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð
                                                                    and Rosemary Caudwell, then subsequently Richard Lyal
     Cartonboard) save and except the following passages:
                                                                    and James Flynn) Ð application for annulment of
                                                                    Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating
     The undertakings named in Article 1 shall forthwith           to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/
     bring the said infringement to an end, if they have not        33.833 Ð Cartonboard, OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1), the
     already done so. They shall henceforth refrain in              Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
     relation to their cartonboard activities from any              of B. Vesterdorf, President of the Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt,


title: Case T-208/05: Action brought on 30 May 2005 by Michael Brown against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/36

         Action brought on 30 May 2005 by Michael Brown against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-208/05)
   (2005/C 193/61)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 May 2005 by Michael Brown, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the decision adopted by the Appointing Authority on 10 February 2005 (notified under cover of a note dated 14 February 2005, received on 25 February 2005), rejecting the claim brought by the applicant on 16 September 2004 against the decision of 22 June 2004 adopted by the president of the selection board of Competition COM/PB/04 refusing the applicant admission to that competition;

               2.

               in addition, in so far as it is necessary, annul the decision adopted on 22 June 2004 by the president of the selection board of Competition COM/PB/04 and the confirmation thereof dated 19 July 2004;

               3.

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The application of the applicant, an auxiliary agent at the Commission, for admission to internal competition for change of category COM/PB/04 was rejected on the ground that he was not a temporary agent or an official at the closing date for the lodging of applications.
   The applicant relies on two pleas, alleging

               —

               firstly, infringement of Articles 27 and 29(1) of the Staff Regulations and a manifest error of assessment in that the contested decisions and the notice of competition had the effect of excluding candidates who could show that they had particular skills and considerable professional experience within the Commission in favour of candidates who were potentially less competent and who had less effective seniority in the Commission's services, and

               —

               secondly, infringement of the principle of non-discrimination in that employees the greater part of whose career had been spent at the Commission as auxiliary agents would be admitted to the competition on the sole ground that they were temporary agents at the closing date for the lodging of applications, whereas the applicant, who was a temporary agent of long standing, was excluded on the sole ground that he was an auxiliary agent on that date.


title: Case T-214/12: Action brought on 21 May 2012 — Indesit Company v OHIM — ILVE (quadrio)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/23

         Action brought on 21 May 2012 — Indesit Company v OHIM — ILVE (quadrio)
   (Case T-214/12)
   2012/C 227/39
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Indesit Company SpA (Fabriano, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia and R. Floridia, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ILVE-Industria Lavorazione Veneta Elettrodomestici SpA (Campodarsego, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 March 2012 in Case R 2219/2010-1 and declare Community trade mark No 7 313 158, which will use the word ‘quadrio’ in special writing to mark refrigerators, legally capable of being registered

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Indesit Company SpA

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘quadrio’ for goods in Class 11 — Application No 7 313 158

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ILVE-Industria Lavorazione Veneta Elettrodomestici SpA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘QUADRA’ for goods in Class 11

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-364/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance d'Arlon (Belgium) lodged on 7 August 2008 — Marc Vandermeir v État Belge — SPF Finances

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance d'Arlon (Belgium) lodged on 7 August 2008 — Marc Vandermeir v État Belge — SPF Finances
   (Case C-364/08)
   (2008/C 260/20)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal de Première Instance d'Arlon
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Marc Vandermeir

      Defendant: État Belge — SPF Finances
   Question referred
   Do Articles 43 and/or 49 EC preclude national legislation of one Member State, such as the legislation in question, which requires a self-employed person residing in that Member State to register his vehicle there, although he carries on business almost exclusively in a second Member State from a fixed establishment that he owns there, and the vehicle is neither intended to be substantially used in the first Member State on a permanent basis, nor is in fact so used?


title: Case C-425/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Vasilios Alexandrou Giankoulis v Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Vasilios Alexandrou Giankoulis v Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton
   (Case C-425/09)
   2010/C 24/38
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vasilios Alexandrou Giankoulis

      Defendant: Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton

      Question referred

   Does the term ‘professional experience’ in Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16), as amended by Article 1(3) of Directive 2001/19/EC (OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1), and prior to its repeal pursuant to Article 62 of Directive 2005/36/EC (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22), correspond to the term ‘professional experience’ defined in Article 1(e) of that Directive and can it be understood to include experience which exhibits the following cumulative characteristics:

               (a)

               it was acquired by the person concerned after obtaining a diploma granting access to a specific regulated profession in the Member State of origin;

               (b)

               it was acquired in the context of the exercise of the profession which is the subject of an application filed in reliance in reliance on Directive 89/48/EEC (see the terms ‘the profession concerned’, ‘la profession concernée’, ‘der betreffende Beruf’ used in the English, French and German versions of the Directive respectively) and

               (c)

               it was acquired during the lawful pursuit of the professional activity, that is to say, under the terms and conditions of the relevant legislation of the Member State in which it was acquired, thereby excluding experience acquired in the profession concerned in the host Member State before the application was accepted, because the profession concerned cannot be lawfully pursued in the host Member State before the application is accepted (subject of course to Article 5 of the Directive, which allows the applicant, subject to conditions, in order to undergo professional education and training not undergone in the Member State of origin, to pursue the profession in the host Member State with the assistance of a qualified member of the profession)?


title: Case T-308/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2014  — Repsol v OHIM — Adell Argiles (ELECTROLINERA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ELECTROLINERA — Earlier national word mark ELECTROLINERA — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2014 — Repsol v OHIM — Adell Argiles (ELECTROLINERA)
   (Case T-308/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ELECTROLINERA - Earlier national word mark ELECTROLINERA - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 007/36)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Repsol, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix and L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Melgar, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Josep María Adell Argiles (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: initially M. García Jiménez and A. Zuazo Araluze, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 March 2013 (Case R 1565/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Josep María Adell Argiles and Repsol, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) of 7 March 2013 (Case R 1565/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Josep María Adell Argiles and Repsol, SA. In so far as concerns the ‘industrial oils and greases; lubricants; fuels (including motor spirit)’ in Class 4 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Case C-441/02: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  27 April 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 8a and 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 18 EC and 39 EC) — Directives 64/221/EEC, 73/148/EEC and 90/364/EEC — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Freedom of movement for nationals of Member States — Public policy — Right to respect for family life — National legislation relating to the prohibition on residence and expulsion — Administrative practice — Criminal conviction — Expulsion)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-441/02) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 8a and 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 18 EC and 39 EC) - Directives 64/221/EEC, 73/148/EEC and 90/364/EEC - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Freedom of movement for nationals of Member States - Public policy - Right to respect for family life - National legislation relating to the prohibition on residence and expulsion - Administrative practice - Criminal conviction - Expulsion)
   (2006/C 143/05)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. O'Reilly and W. Bogensberger, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: W.-D. Plessing and A. Tiemann, Agents)

      Party intervening in support of the applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, and M. Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 8a and 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 18 EC and 39 EC) — Articles 3 and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health (OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 117) — Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) — Articles 1, 4, 5, 8 and 10 of Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and the provision of services (OJ 1973 L 172, p. 14) — Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence (OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26) — National legislation relating to residence prohibitions and expulsion on grounds of public policy, in particular for criminal convictions — Administrative practice
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by failing to transpose in sufficiently clear terms in Paragraph 12(1) of the Law on entry and residence of nationals of Member States of the European Economic Community (Gesetz über Einreise und Aufenthalt von Staatsangehörigen der Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft) of 21 January 1980 the requirements under Community law with regard to restriction of freedom of movement, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC, Article 3 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health and Article 10 of Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and the provision of services;

               2)

               For the rest, dismisses the application;

               3)

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

               4)

               Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 31 of 8.2.2003.


title: Case T-324/99: Action brought on 17 November 1999 by Association des Fonctionnaires Indépendants pour la Défense de la Fonction Publique Européenne (TAO/AFI) and Rosario De Simone against Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.2.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 34/27
Action brought on 29 October 1999 by Grooters Rekken                    Action brought on 17 November 1999 by Association
B.V., Grooters Eibergen B.V., Tussenhoudstermaatschap-                  des Fonctionnaires Indépendants pour la Défense de la
pij Wija B.V. and H. Grooters against the Commission of                 Fonction Publique Européenne (TAO/AFI) and Rosario
                 the European Communities                               De Simone against Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
                        (Case T-267/99)
                                                                                (Case T-324/99)
                         (2000/C 34/51)
                                                                                (2000/C 34/52)
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 29 October 1999 by Grooters                     European Communities on 17 November 1999 by the Associ-
Rekken B.V., Grooters Eibergen B.V., Tussenhoudstermaat-                ation des Fonctionnaires Indépendants pour la Défense de la
schappij Wija B.V. and H. Grooters, respectively established at         Fonction Publique Européenne (TAO/AFI) and Rosario De
Rekken and Eibergen (Netherlands), represented by H.G. Se-              Simone, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of
venster and E.P. Jorritsma, of the Hague Bar, with an address           the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch,                 the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
11 Rue Goethe.
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul the Commission’s decision to implement the elec-
                                                                            toral procedure for renewal of the local section of the
(a) order the Commission of the European Communities to                     Brussels Staff Committee, notified to the applicants on
    give the applicants’ advisers access to its file relating to            5 October 1999 by note of the Director-General of DG IX,
    its decision of 20 July 1999 (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)                   entailing the adoption of certain measures;
    concerning State aid granted by the Netherlands to 633 ser-
    vice stations in the region bordering Germany, and order            — annul the electoral procedure proper and all measures
    the adoption of all such further measures as may be                     taken by the Commission with a view to effecting the
    necessary;                                                              elections at issue, scheduled for 30 November 1999;
(b) annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission’s decision of              — order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.
    20 July 1999 (C(1999) 2539 final);
(c) order the Commission to pay the costs.                              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The applicants seek annulment of the contested decision in
                                                                        that it was accompanied inter alia by the following measures:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        — the note addressed to the Electoral Office appointed by the
                                                                            General Assembly of the Brussels staff, dated 19 January
This case is linked to Case T-210/99. The pleas in law and                  1999, calling upon it to resume its duties with a view to
main arguments are the same as those in Case T-250/99.                      organising a new ballot;
                                                                        — the note addressed to the Electoral Office calling upon it
                                                                            to re-open the possibility of introducing new candidatures
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.                                          and to publish an election notice amending and replacing
                                                                            the notice published on 27 January 1999; and
                                                                        — the note addressed to the administration calling upon it to
                                                                            proceed as soon as possible with the publication of an
                                                                            updated voters’ list.
 ---pagebreak--- C 34/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 5.2.2000
In support of their claims, the applicants allege:                              Removal from the register of Case T-307/97 (1)
— breach of the Staff Regulations, in particular Articles 9                                      (2000/C 34/53)
    and 24a, and Annex II concerning the composition and
    procedure of the bodies provided for in Article 9 of the
    Staff Regulations;                                                                     (Language of the case: English)
— breach of the rules of procedure for Staff Committee                   By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth
    elections, adopted by the General Assembly of officials on           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
    19 January 1999;                                                     Communities has ordered the removal from the register
                                                                         of Case T-307/97, B.G.S. Rowlands and E.H.S. Rowlands v
                                                                         Council of the European Union and Commission of the
— breach of the rules concerning the establishment of a Staff            European Communities.
    Committee, adopted by the Commission on 9 April 1968
    and last amended on 22 October 1997;
                                                                         (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
— breach of general principles of law, such as the principle
    that all administrative acts or decisions must be based on
    sound and relevant grounds, not vitiated by errors in fact
    or law;
— conduct ultra vires.                                                          Removal from the register of Case T-308/97 (1)
The applicants maintain that the Commission, principally                                         (2000/C 34/54)
through the Director-General of DG IX, decided, in breach of
the above rules and principles, to implement the procedure for
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
renewal of the Brussels Staff Committee, on the view that the
elections of 9, 10 and 11 March 1999, annulled by decision
apparently dated 29 September 1999, could be resumed even                By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth
though the election results had been annulled. This was done             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
in the belief that it was unnecessary — quod non — to hold a             Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
General Assembly of officials, not only to establish a new               Case T-308/97, J. Ward, B. Ward and Miss M. Lewis v Council
electoral office but also to fix the date for the new ballot.            of the European Union and Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.


title: Case T-165/01: Action brought on 17 July 2001 by Hans Mc Auley against Council of the European Union

text:
C 289/28              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.10.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the decision approving the applicant’s staff report
      for the period 1995-1997;                                          In support of his action, the applicant pleads breach of
                                                                         essential procedural requirements, breach of the principle of
                                                                         equal treatment and breach of the rules governing the work of
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              the jury. The applicant argues that neither the composition of
                                                                         the jury nor the conduct of the oral tests for competition
                                                                         COM/TB/99 complied with procedural requirements as defined
                                                                         in case-law. He also maintains that the reasons given for the
                                                                         contested decision do not meet the requisite legal standard.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his action, the applicant pleads:
—     infringement of Article 6 of the general implementing
      provisions relating to Article 43 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                         Action brought on 17 July 2001 by Hans Mc Auley against
—     breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-                                Council of the European Union
      discrimination and infringement of the rights of the
      defence;
                                                                                (Case T-165/01)
—     breach of the principle of legitimate expectations;
                                                                                (2001/C 289/67)
—     manifest error of assessment and incoherence.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against Council of the European Union was brought
                                                                         before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         on 17 July 2001 by Hans Mc Auley, residing in Wezembeek-
                                                                         Oppem (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël Louis et Véronique
                                                                         Peere, lawyers.
Action brought on 12 July 2001 by Liam O’Bradaigh
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (Case T-161/01)
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the Commission of 15 September
                                                                               2000 on the drawing up the final staff report for the
                        (2001/C 289/66)                                        period 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;
                   (Language of the case: French)                        —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Pleas in law and main arguments
European Communities on 12 July 2001 by Liam O’Bradaigh,
residing in Mechelen, Belgium, represented by Jean-Noël Louis            The applicant takes the view that the final staff report was
and Véronique Peere, Lawyers, with an address for service in             drawn up in breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
Luxembourg.                                                              reasons and of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as it:
                                                                         —     awards standardised, harmonised marks;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     contains serious accusations which are neither substan-
—     annul the decision of the jury in competition COM-                       tiated, objective nor specific;
      T/OB/99 to award him in the oral tests a mark lower than
      the pass mark and to exclude him from the reserve list;            —     refers to conduct which has not been proven.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-531/12 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2014  — Commune de Millau, Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA) v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Grant contract concerning a local development action — Recovery of part of the sums paid — Assumption of debt — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Limitation period — Liability of the Commission)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2014 — Commune de Millau, Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA) v European Commission
   (Case C-531/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Arbitration clause - Grant contract concerning a local development action - Recovery of part of the sums paid - Assumption of debt - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Limitation period - Liability of the Commission))
   2014/C 282/08
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Commune de Millau, Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA) (represented by: L. Hincker and F. Bleykasten, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Lejeune and D. Calciu, acting as Agents, and by E. Bouttier, avocat)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Joined Cases T-168/10 and T-572/10 Commission v SEMEA and Commune de Millau, in so far as it found, in the assessment of the counterclaim brought by the Commune de Millau and the Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA), that there is no direct causal link between the conduct of the European Commission and the damage allegedly sustained as a result of the order for payment of default interest;

               2)

               Upholds in part the counterclaim brought by the Commune de Millau and the Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA) and orders the European Commission to pay three quarters of the amount of default interest at the annual statutory rate applied in France that is due in respect of the period from 27 April 1993 to 18 November 2005;

               3)

               Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               4)

               Orders the European Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs at first instance and on appeal, to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by the Commune de Millau and by the Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA) in both sets of proceedings;

               5)

               Orders the Commune de Millau and the Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA) to bear three quarters of their own costs incurred at first instance and on appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.


title: Case T-58/12: Action brought on 9 February 2012 — Nabipour and Others v Council

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/23

         Action brought on 9 February 2012 — Nabipour and Others v Council
   (Case T-58/12)
   2012/C 109/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Ghasem Nabipour (Tehran, Iran), Mansour Eslami (Madliena, Malta), Mohamad Talai (Hamburg, Germany), Mohammad Moghaddami Fard (Tehran), Alireza Ghezelayagh (Singapore, Singapore), Gholam Hossein Golparvar (Tehran), Hassan Jalil Zadeh (Tehran), Mohammad Hadi Pajand (London, the United Kingdom), Ahmad Sarkandi (United Arab Emirates), Seyed Alaeddin Sadat Rasool (Tehran) and Ahmad Tafazoly (Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China) (represented by: S. Kentridge, QC (Queen’s Counsel), M. Lester, Barrister, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11), insofar as they concern the applicants;

               —

               Declare that a travel ban does not apply to any of them; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law, alleging that by including their names in the lists enclosed to the contested Decision and Regulation, the Council has:

               —

               failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons;

               —

               failed to fulfil the criteria for listing, and/or committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that those criteria were satisfied in relation to the conduct of the applicants;

               —

               infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to protection of their property, business, and reputation, as well as of private and family life; and

               —

               failed to safeguard the applicants’ rights of defence and right to effective judicial review.


title: Case F-153/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 6 May 2014  — Forget v Commission (Civil service — Official — Remuneration — Family allowances — Household allowance — Condition governing the grant — Registered partnership under the law of Luxembourg — Couple comprised of stable, non-marital partners having access to legal marriage — Official who does not fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 1(2)(c)(iv) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/49

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 6 May 2014 — Forget v Commission
   (Case F-153/12) (1)

   ((Civil service - Official - Remuneration - Family allowances - Household allowance - Condition governing the grant - Registered partnership under the law of Luxembourg - Couple comprised of stable, non-marital partners having access to legal marriage - Official who does not fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 1(2)(c)(iv) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations))
   2014/C 421/67
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Claude Forget (Steinfort, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Kerger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer et A. Bisch, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision refusing payment of the household allowance and of the survivor’s pension for the applicant’s partner.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Mr Forget to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 23.02.2013, p. 26.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 December 2004 in Case C-434/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden): Arnold André GmbH & Co. KG v Landrat des Kreises Herford (Directive 2001/37/EC — Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products — Article 8 — Prohibition of placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use — Validity)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 14 December 2004
   in Case C-434/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden): Arnold André GmbH & Co. KG v Landrat des Kreises Herford
       (1)

   (Directive 2001/37/EC - Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products - Article 8 - Prohibition of placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use - Validity)
   (2005/C 45/06)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-434/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany), made by decision of 14 November 2002, received at the Court on 29 November 2002, in the proceedings between Arnold André GmbH & Co. KG and Landrat des Kreises Herford – the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans and K. Lenaerts, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, and subsequently M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 December 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Consideration of the question referred has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 8 of Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.


title: Case F-128/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 12 March 2014  — CR v Parliament (Civil service — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Recovery of overpayments — Intention to mislead the administration — Evidence — Not possible to rely against the administration upon the five year time-limit for bringing the application for recovery of the overpayments — Plea of illegality — Pre-litigation procedure — Requirement of consistency between the complaint and the action — Plea of illegality raised for the first time in the action — Admissibility)

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/36

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 12 March 2014 — CR v Parliament
   (Case F-128/12) (1)

   ((Civil service - Remuneration - Family allowances - Dependent child allowance - Recovery of overpayments - Intention to mislead the administration - Evidence - Not possible to rely against the administration upon the five year time-limit for bringing the application for recovery of the overpayments - Plea of illegality - Pre-litigation procedure - Requirement of consistency between the complaint and the action - Plea of illegality raised for the first time in the action - Admissibility))
   2014/C 129/43
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CR (represented by: A. Salerno and B. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Montebelle-Demogeot and E. Taneva, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision to recover, under Article 85(2) of the Staff Regulations, all of the dependent child allowance overpaid to the applicant and not only that overpaid to him during the last five years.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders CR to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union, as the intervener, to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 73.


title: Action brought on 18 December 1998 by Tate & Lyle plc against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-202/98)

text:
20.2.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 48/29
As regards, specifically, the alleged infringements of              1998 by Tate & Lyle plc, represented by R. Fowler QC
Community law which will continue notwithstanding the               and A. L. Morris, with an address for service in
draft Royal Decree at issue in these proceedings, the               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11
applicants mention the following:                                   Rue Goethe.
Ð the scope is limited to officials who were engaged after
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
    31 December 1985, resulting in discrimination against
    those Spanish officials who began their service before
    Spain's accession;
                                                                    Ð annul Article 3 of Commission Decision of 14 October
                                                                        1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85
Ð Breach of the obligation attaching to the legislating                 (Case No IV/F-3/33.708 Ð British Sugar plc, Case No
    State by virtue of its responsibility for infringement of           IV/F-3/33.709 Ð Tate & Lyle plc, Case No
    Community law to redress the damage caused, since,                  IV/F-3/33.710 Ð Napier Brown & Company Ltd,
    in the formula laid down for calculating the actuarial              Case No IV/F-3/33.711 Ð James Budgett Sugars Ltd)
    equivalent, the retirement pension which would accrue               in so far as it concerns Tate & Lyle, and
    as at the date of joining the EC is updated to the date
    of calculation by reference to the Consumer Price
    Index prevailing in Spain during those years. In the
                                                                    Ð order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.
    applicants' opinion, in order to redress the damage
    caused to officials and to conform with its domestic
    legislation, the Administration should, at least, place
    them in the same situation as Spanish pensioners,               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    applying to them the same enhancements as the latter
    have enjoyed over the last twelve years.
                                                                    By Article 1 of the contested Decision, the Commission
                                                                    declared that British Sugar plc, Tate & Lyle plc, Napier
Ð Partial breach of the obligation contained in
                                                                    Brown & Company Ltd and James Budgett Sugars Ltd
    Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations
                                                                    (the Parties') had infringed Article 85(1) by participating
    through failure to make provision for the transfer of
                                                                    in an agreement and/or concerted practice the object of
    the pension rights of officials who have been
                                                                    which was to restrict competition by the coordination of
    self-employed.
                                                                    the parties' pricing policy on the market for industrial
                                                                    sugar in Great Britain. By Article 2, the Commission
                                                                    declared that British Sugar plc and Tate & Lyle had
Ð The Draft Royal Decree makes no reference
                                                                    infringed Article 85(1) by participating in an agreement
    whatsoever to the transfer of rights accrued during
                                                                    and/or concerted practice the object of which was to
    secondment or unpaid leave, nor does it deal with
                                                                    restrict competition by the coordination of the parties'
    transfers from the Community social security system
                                                                    pricing policy on the market for retail sugar in Great
    to a national scheme, contrary to the requirements of
                                                                    Britain. By Article 3, the Commission imposed a fine of
    Article 11(1) and (3) of Annex VIII to the Staff
                                                                    ECU 39,6 million on British Sugar plc, ECU 7 million on
    Regulations.
                                                                    Tate & Lyle, ECU 1,8 million on Napier Brown &
                                                                    Company Ltd, and ECU 1,8 million on James Budgett
Ð The Draft Royal Decree, finally, infringes Article 8 of           Sugars Ltd.
    Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in so far as it
    includes certain particulars of an actuarial nature.
                                                                    The applicant submits that the fine of ECU 7 million
                                                                    imposed on it by Article 3 of the contested Decision
                                                                    should be annulled on the following grounds:
                                                                    Ð the Commission, in applying the Commission's
Action brought on 18 December 1998 by Tate & Lyle plc                   Leniency Notice (1) by analogy, failed to apply it
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    correctly and imposed an excessive fine on the
                      (Case T-202/98)                                   applicant;
                       (1999/C 48/62)
                                                                    Ð contrary to the Commission's statement at
               (Language of the case: English)                          paragraph 217 of the contested Decision, the applicant
                                                                        did maintain continuous and complete cooperation
                                                                        with the Commission throughout the investigation,
An action against the Commission of the European                        and therefore fulfilled the substantive requirements of
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       point (d) of Section B of the Leniency Notice, thereby
Instance of the European Communities on 18 December                     meeting all the requirements of the said Section B;
 ---pagebreak--- C 48/30                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
Ð the applicant had a legitimate expectation that the                  Ð in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and 4, of the
     fullness of its cooperation would be taken into                        Decision or reduce the fine; and
     account in the level of fine imposed;
                                                                       Ð order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.
Ð the Commission infringed Article 190 of the EC
     Treaty by failing to state adequate reasons for its view
     that the applicant did not maintain continuous and                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
     complete       cooperation     with     the    Commission
     throughout the investigation; and
                                                                       The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission
                                                                       Decision of 14 October 1998 relating to a proceeding
Ð in the absence of adequate explicit reasoning, the                   pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (1).
     implicit reasons for the Commission's view that the
     applicant did not maintain continuous and complete
     cooperation with the Commission throughout the                    The applicant challenges the contested decision on the
     investigation appears to be the alleged retraction by             following grounds:
     the applicant of statements made earlier in the
     proceeding. The applicant made no retractions of
     earlier statements; what the Commission apparently                Ð The Decision is based on an incorrect and incomplete
     regards as retractions' were in fact no more than                     assessment of the facts and vitiated by manifest error
     corrections or clarifications of the Commission's                      of law.
     interpretation of the facts; the applicant was entitled
     to make these clarifications, and could not thereby be
     considered not to be cooperating with the
     Commission.                                                       Ð By failing to address fully the submissions and
                                                                            evidence of British Sugar and of the other addressees
                                                                            of the Decision and by failing to adduce evidence
(1) Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of                 which supports its contentions regarding the
    fines in Cartel Cases (OJ C 207, 18.7.1996).                            application of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty, the
                                                                            Commission has infringed essential procedural
                                                                            requirements.
                                                                       Ð The Decision fails to exhibit reasoning of the requisite
                                                                            standard under Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
Action brought on 21 December 1998 by British Sugar plc
   against the Commission of the European Communities                  (1) See also Cases T-202/98 Tate & Lyle v. Commission and
                                                                           T-207/98 Napier Brown & Company Ltd. v. Commission.
                         (Case T-204/98)
                          (1999/C 48/63)
                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       Action brought on 23 December 1998 by Napier Brown
                                                                       & Company Limited against the Commission of the
An action against the Commission of the European                                          European Communities
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 21 December                                           (Case T-207/98)
1998 by British Sugar plc, represented by Thomas Sharpe
                                                                                (1999/C 48/64)
QC, Daniel Jowell, Rae Lindsay and Alex Nourry, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 23 December
Ð annul in its entirety Commission Decision of                         1998 by Napier Brown & Company Limited, represented
     14 October 1998 in Case IV7F-3/33.708-British Sugar               by Diana Guy, with an address for service in Luxembourg
     plc relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC           at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt of Bonn & Schmitt, 7
     Treaty;                                                           Val St Croix.


title: Case C-534/10 P: Appeal brought on 17 December 2010 by Brookfield New Zealand Ltd, Elaris SNC against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2010 in Case T-135/08: Schniga v OCVV — Elaris et Brookfield New Zealand (Gala Schnitzer)

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/2

         Appeal brought on 17 December 2010 by Brookfield New Zealand Ltd, Elaris SNC against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2010 in Case T-135/08: Schniga v OCVV — Elaris et Brookfield New Zealand (Gala Schnitzer)
   (Case C-534/10 P)
   2011/C 38/03
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Brookfield New Zealand Ltd, Elaris SNC (represented by: M. Eller, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Community Plant Variety Office, Schniga GmbH

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for judgment or, in the alternative, by way of final judgment, dismiss the action of Plaintiff Schniga GmbH and consequently confirm the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 21 November 2007 in Cases A-003/2007 and A-004/2007

               —

               order that the costs be reimbursed.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:
   I.   Inadmissibility of the third plea in law put forward by the Applicant Schniga GmbH. Illegitimate review of the facts as assessed by the Board of Appeal. Infringement of Art. 73(2) of Regulation No. 2100/94 (1) (hereinafter CR).

               —

               The third plea in law, put forward by the Applicant Schniga GmbH in support of its action for annulment of the Board of Appeal's decision and upheld by the contested judgment, ought to have been declared inadmissible, since it implied a review of facts, not allowed under the provision of Art. 73(2) CR.

               —

               The General Court infringed Art. 73(2) CR by illegitimately reviewing findings of fact by the Board of Appeal concerning the actual content of the individual request within the meaning of Art. 55(4) CR and the understanding of them by the Applicant.

         II.   Infringement of Art. 55(4) in connection with Art. 61(1)(b) and with Art. 80 of Regulation No. 2100/94 (hereinafter CR)

               —

               The General Court erred in affirming (or implicitly assuming) that art. 55(4) CR confers upon the Office the power to make requests in individual cases, the violation of which entails the rejection of an application according to art. 61(1)(b) CR, not only with reference to the quality of the material to be submitted within a certain time, but also with reference to the documentary proof of such quality.

               —

               The General Court erred in affirming (or implicitly assuming) that art. 55(4) CR confers upon the Office the power to split its requests in individual cases into two autonomous and independent requests, one concerning the material itself and one concerning the documentary proof of quality, the violation of which entails the rejection of an application in accordance with art. 61(1)(b) CR.

               —

               The General Court further erred in affirming (or implicitly assuming) that art. 55(4), in conjunction with art. 61(1)(b) CR, confers upon the Office the power to permit new submission of material, in a situation where the previously set time limit for submission of material of a certain quality had already elapsed, merely because the time limit for sending documentary evidence as to the quality of such material had not yet elapsed.

               —

               The General Court erred in affirming (or implicitly assuming) that art. 55(4) in conjunction with art. 61(1)(b) CR confers upon the Office the power to allow a new submission of virus free material, once the time limit for the submission of the said material had elapsed and once it was definitely clear that the said material was not virus free.

               —

               The General Court further erred in affirming (or implicitly assuming) — given that the submitted material was virus infected and that, therefore, no health certificate for this material could have been sent and was never going to be sent — that the wording ‘as soon as possible’, with reference to the invitation to send the missing health certificate for material already submitted, could not be construed as a time limit and in any case not as an elapsed time limit, with reference to an individual request within the meaning of art. 55(4) CR, leading to the rejection of the application in accordance with art. 61(1)(b) CR.

               —

               The General Court further erred in affirming (or implicitly assuming) that art. 55(4) CR confers upon the Office full discretionary power to satisfy itself, without any further hierarchical or judicial review, of the legal precision and clarity of its requests in individual cases, the violation of which entails the rejection of an application in accordance with art. 61(1)(b) CR, and in further affirming (or implicitly assuming) that such discretionary evaluation by the Office can be carried out a) whether or not the applicant has formally and timely asked for reinstatement ex art. 80 CR, and b) without any consideration of the actual understanding by the applicant of such a request or as to his good or bad faith in the interpretation of such a request.

      (1)  OJ L 227, p. 1


title: Case C-523/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland — Netherlands) — Aannemingsbedrijf Aertssen NV, Aertssen Terrassements SA v VSB Machineverhuur BV, Van Sommeren Bestrating BV, Jos van Sommeren (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 1 — Scope — Complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings — Article 27 — Lis pendens — Proceedings brought before a court of another Member State — Ongoing judicial investigation — Article 30 — Time when a court is deemed to be seised)

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland — Netherlands) — Aannemingsbedrijf Aertssen NV, Aertssen Terrassements SA v VSB Machineverhuur BV, Van Sommeren Bestrating BV, Jos van Sommeren
   (Case C-523/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 1 - Scope - Complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings - Article 27 - Lis pendens - Proceedings brought before a court of another Member State - Ongoing judicial investigation - Article 30 - Time when a court is deemed to be seised))
   (2015/C 414/13)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Gelderland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Aannemingsbedrijf Aertssen NV, Aertssen Terrassements SA

      Defendants: VSB Machineverhuur BV, Van Sommeren Bestrating BV, Jos van Sommeren

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a complaint lodged with an investigating magistrate seeking to join a civil action to proceedings falls within the scope of that regulation in so far as its object is to obtain monetary compensation for harm allegedly suffered by the complainant.

               2.

               Article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that proceedings are brought, within the meaning of that provision, when a complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings has been lodged with an investigating magistrate, even though the judicial investigation of the case at issue has not yet been closed.

               3.

               Article 30 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a person lodges a complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings with an investigating magistrate by means of the lodging of a document which need not, under the applicable national law, be served before that lodging, the time which must be chosen for the purposes of holding that magistrate to be seised is the time when that complaint was lodged.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


title: Case T-908/16: Action brought on 20 December 2016 — Starbucks (HK) v EUIPO — Now Wireless (nowwireless)

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/28

         Action brought on 20 December 2016 — Starbucks (HK) v EUIPO — Now Wireless (nowwireless)
   (Case T-908/16)
   (2017/C 046/32)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Starbucks (HK) Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: P. Kavanagh, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Now Wireless Ltd (Whyteleafe, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘nowwireless’ — Application for registration No 6 782 569

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 October 2016 in Case R 662/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision, as well the decision given by the Opposition Division;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-127/16 P: Appeal brought on 26 February 2016 by SNCF Mobilités (SNCF) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2015 in Case T-242/12 SNCF v Commission

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/25

         Appeal brought on 26 February 2016 by SNCF Mobilités (SNCF) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2015 in Case T-242/12 SNCF v Commission

   (Case C-127/16 P)
   (2016/C 145/32)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: SNCF Mobilités (SNCF) (represented by: P. Beurier, O. Billard, G. Fabre and V. Landes, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic, Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation.

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 in Case T-242/12 Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) v Commission;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all of the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant relies on several grounds in support of its appeal.
   First, it submits, in distorting the provisions of Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 decision relating to the en bloc disposal of Sernam’s assets, the General Court committed several errors of law and failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons.
   Second, it submits, in holding that the requirements of openness and transparency applicable to the call for tenders required by Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 decision necessarily presupposed that the selected candidate must have participated in the tender procedure as a candidate and in an autonomous capacity from the outset, the General Court erred in law.
   Third, it submits, in holding that the tender of the Sernam management team was much more unfavourable to the vendor than the preliminary tenders of the other candidates, the General Court distorted the facts and erred in law.
   Fourth, it submits, in holding that the Commission had not confused the purpose and the price of the en bloc sale of Sernam’s assets, the General Court erred in law, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons and ruled on the basis of contradictory reasoning.
   Fifth, it submits, in holding that the entry in the liabilities of the liquidation account of Sernam S.A. in the amount corresponding to the aid of EUR 41 million did not comply with Article 4 of the Sernam 2 decision, the General Court erred in law and distorted the operative part of the Sernam 2 decision.
   Sixth, it submits, in holding that the private investor principle was not applicable to the en bloc disposal of Sernam’s assets, the General Court erred in law, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons and distorted the operative part of the Sernam 2 decision.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by judgment of 21 March 1995 in the case of Finanzamt Augsburg-Stadt v. Marktgemeinde Welden (Case C-247/95)

text:
14 . 10 . 95           EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 268/ 11
A. failure by the EC Commission to submit to the                          3 . In the event that that question should also be answered
     Management Committee for Tobacco Regulation                               in the negative : may a body governed by public law rely
     ( EEC ) No 3477/93 in draft form having retroactive                       directly on Article 4 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) in conjunction with
     effect;                                                                   Article 4(5 ) of Directive 77/388/EEC in order to oppose
                                                                               the application of a national provision even where the
B. infringement of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3813/92                       application of those provisions of the Directive, albeit
     and inadequacy of the statement of reasons in                             having an indirectly favourable effect through the
     Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3477/93 ;                                deduction of input tax, also has a burdensome effect ?
C. infringement of Article 3(1 ), second paragraph, ( iv ) of             (') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
     Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 727/70, as replaced by
     Article 1 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1329/90;
D. infringement of Article 39 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty;
E. infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity of                  Appeal brought on 24 July 1995 by the European
     Community measures;
                                                                          Parliament against the judgment delivered on 30 May 1995
                                                                          by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
F. infringement of the principle of the protection of                     European Communities in Case T-289/94 between Angelo
     legitimate expectations ;
                                                                                Innamorati and the European Parliament
G. infringement of the principle of equal treatment of                                           ( Case C-254/95 P)
     traders in the Community;                                                                       ( 95/C 268/24 )
H. misuse of powers .                                                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 30 May 1995
                                                                          by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
(') OJ No L 317 , 18 . 12 . 1993 , p . 30 .                               European Communities in Case T-289/94 between Angelo
                                                                          Innamorati and the European Parliament was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                          24 July 1995 by the European Parliament, represented by
                                                                          Manfred Peter and José Luis Rufas Quintana, acting as
                                                                          agents, with an address for service at the Secretariat of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                               European Parliament, Kirchberg.
Bundesfinanzhofby judgment of 21 March 1995 in the case
 of Finanzamt Augsburg-Stadt v. Marktgemeinde Welden
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
                          ( Case C-247/95 )
                            ( 95/C 268/23 )                               — set aside the contested decision, a judgment of the Court
                                                                               of First Instance delivered on 30 May 1995 in Case
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         T-289/94       Angelo       Innamorati     v.    European
European Communities by a judgment of the XI Senate of                         Parliament ( 1 );
the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 21 March
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on 17 July                — grant the orders sought at first instance by the European
1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Finanzamt                       Parliament, namely:
Augsburg-Stadt v. Marktgemeinde Welden on the following                        — a ruling that the action is unfounded,
questions :
                                                                               — an order for costs in accordance with the applicable
 1 , does the fourth subparagraph of Article 4 ( 5 ) of                             provisions,
     Directive 77/388/EEC ( A ) allow the Member States to
     treat tax-exempted activities, in respect of which,                  — make an appropriate order as to the costs incurred
                                                                               before the Court of Justice .
     however, it is possible to opt to be taxed, of bodies
     governed by public law as activities which they engage in
     as public authorities, even though they pursue them                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     under the same legal conditions and in the same way as
     private traders ?                                                     infringement of Community law, in particular disregard or
                                                                           misinterpretation of the case-law of the Court of Justice and
                                                                           the Court of First Instance concerning the provision of
 2 . In the event that the first question should be answered in            reasons for administrative decisions : the Selection Board in a
     the negative: may the scope of the right of option to be              competition is not required to specify the marking criteria or
     taxed be restricted pursuant to the second subparagraph
      of Article 13 ( C ) of Directive 77/388/EEC in such a way            parameters which it is entitled to set for the marking of a
                                                                           written test .
     that, where activities coming under the first
      subparagraph of Article 13 ( C ) of that Directive are
      engaged in by bodies governed by public law, they are                (') OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7. 1995 , p . 15 .
      treated    as   business      activities   only    in  certain
      circumstances ?


title: Case C-112/06: Order of the President of the Court of 2 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/30

         Order of the President of the Court of 2 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-112/06) (1)

   (2009/C 69/55)

      Language of the case: Greek

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.


title: Case C-255/07: Order of the President of the Court of 21 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 21 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-255/07) (1)

   (2008/C 128/57)

      Language of the case: Spanish

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Case T-353/05: Action brought on 20 September 2005 — Gabrielle Giancarla Sharon Kubanski v the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/32

         Action brought on 20 September 2005 — Gabrielle Giancarla Sharon Kubanski v the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-353/05)
   (2005/C 281/59)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties:

      Applicant(s): Gabrielle Giancarla Sharon Kubanski (Leggiuno, Italy) (represented by: Massimo Condinanzi and Devis Bono, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): the Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 14 June 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint No R/170/05 of 16 February 2005 and, consequently, annul decision D(2002)34440 of 16 December 2004;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the shortfall in the applicant's salary as of 16 January 2005 until the date of the applicant's actual reinstatement in Grade B IV, step 2, at a figure to be quantified in the course of the proceedings, if necessary with the aid of expert evidence;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant in this case is contesting the defendant's decision to terminate her fixed-term contract as a temporary agent signed on 4 October 2004. It should be pointed out in this respect that the reasons given by the Commission for the termination were connected with the applicant's alleged failure to meet the requirements under Article 5 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities. In particular, the Commission alleges that Mrs Kubanski's educational qualification (diploma di Addetto agli Uffici Turistici — Tourist Agency diploma of accreditation) does not qualify her for classification in Category B*4, step 2, which was allocated to her in the contract.
   In support of her claims, the applicant submits:

               —

               that the requirements laid down in notice of competition COM/2004/5352/R, which is the basis of the procedure under which the applicant was engaged and which has given rise to these proceedings, did not state that it was necessary for the applicant to possess a specific educational qualification;

               —

               infringement and misapplication of Article 5(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Staff Regulations. She alleges in this respect, on the one hand, that her diploma is a qualification which attests that she has completed a three-year course of secondary studies conferring a vocational qualification giving access to post-secondary education and, on the other hand, that between 1 May 2001 and 30 April 2004 the applicant performed duties with the Joint Research Centre in Ispra which are absolutely identical to those required for the post announced in the notice of competition in the present case.

               —

               Infringement of Articles 14 and 47 to 50(a) of the conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities.

               —

               Infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

               —

               Unlawful conduct on the part of the Administration in that it breached the principles of legal certainty and equal treatment.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 22 October 1998 in Case C-143/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail, Liège) Office National des Pensions (ONP): v. Francesco Conti (Social security - Articles 12(2), 46(3) and 46(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Old age and death (insurance) - National rules against overlapping)

text:
19.12.98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 397/5
Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht (Germany)                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
                                                                                (First Chamber)
that court between Hilmar Kellinghusen and Amt für
Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Kiel (joined party:                                         of 22 October 1998
Ministerium für ländliche Räume, Landwirtschaft,
Ernährung und Tourismus des Landes Schleswig-Holstein),           in Case C-143/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
and between Ernst-Detlef Ketelsen and Amt für Land- und           the Cour du Travail, LieÁge) Office National des Pensions
Wasserwirtschaft Husum (joined party: Ministerium für                             (ONP): v. Francesco Conti (1)
ländliche Räume, Landwirtschaft, Ernährung und
Tourismus des Landes Schleswig-Holstein) Ð on the                 (Social security Ð Articles 12(2), 46(3) and 46(b) of
interpretation and validity, in Case C-36/97, of                  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 Ð Old age and death
Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of                (insurance) Ð National rules against overlapping)
30 June 1992 establishing a support system for producers                                  (98/C 397/08)
of certain arable crops (OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 12) and, in
Case C-37/97, of Article 30(a) of Regulation (EEC)
No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ,
English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 187), as amended by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2066/92 of 30 June 1992
amending Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 and repealing
                                                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Regulation (EEC) No 468/87 laying down general rules
                                                                           published in the European Court Reports)
applying to the special premium for beef producers and
Regulation (EEC) No 1357/80 introducing a system of
premiums for maintaining suckler cows (OJ L 215,
30.7.1992, p. 49) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),                    In Case C-143/97: Reference to the Court under
composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), President of          Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Cour du Travail,
the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini, H. Ragnemalm               LieÁge (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
and R. Schintgen, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General;         pending before that court between Office National des
H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,           Pensions (ONP) and Francesco Conti Ð application for a
gave a judgment on 22 October 1998, in which it ruled:            preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Articles 12(2),
                                                                  46(3) and 46(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
                                                                  of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
                                                                  schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
1. Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/             and to members of their families moving within the
    92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a support system for          Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416),
    producers of certain arable crops and Article 30(a) of        as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
    Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June          No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6), as
    1968 on the common organisation of the market in              amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of
    beef and veal, as inserted by Council Regulation              30 April 1992 (OJ L 136, 19.5.1992, p. 7) Ð the Court
    (EEC) No 2066/92 of 30 June 1992 amending                     (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the
    Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 and repealing                      Chamber, D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur) and M.
    Regulation (EEC) No 468/87 laying down general                Wathelet, Judges; M. S. Alber, Advocate-General; L.
    rules applying to the special premium for beef                Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
    producers and Regulation (EEC) No 1357/80                     judgment on 22 October 1998, in which it has ruled that:
    introducing a system of premiums for maintaining
    suckler cows, prohibit the authorities in the Member
    States from charging applicants administrative fees for       A national rule which provides that the supplement to a
    processing their applications for aid even if the             mineworker's retirement pension is to be reduced by the
    administrative fees fixed by those authorities                amount of a retirement pension which the person
    correspond to the rates which are otherwise usual in          concerned may claim under a scheme of another Member
    national law and those fees are so low that they are          State constitutes a provision for reduction of benefit
    not capable of deterring applicants from applying for         within the meaning of Article 12(2) of Council Regulation
    aid.                                                          (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
                                                                  social security schemes to employed persons, to self-
                                                                  employed persons and to members of their families
2. Consideration of the questions referred has disclosed          moving within the Community, as amended by Council
    no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of         Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, and within
    Regulations (EEC) No 1765/92 and Regulation (EEC)             the meaning of Articles 12(2), 46(3) and 46(b) of that
    No 2066/92.                                                   version of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, as amended by
                                                                  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992.
(1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.