title: Judgment of the Court of 5 November 2002 in Case C-466/98: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral agreement with the United States of America — Agreement authorising the United States of America to revoke, suspend or limit the traffic rights of air carriers designated by the United Kingdom which are not owned by the latter or its nationals — Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC))

text:
21.12.2002            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 323/1
                                                                      I
                                                                (Information)
                                                   COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                           COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     owned by the United Kingdom or United Kingdom nationals,
                                                                          the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has
                                                                          failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 52 of the EC Treaty
                     of 5 November 2002                                   (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC), the Court, composed
                                                                          of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Sixth Chamber, acting for
                                                                          the President, R. Schintgen (President of Chamber), C. Gul-
                                                                          mann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris
in Case C-466/98: Commission of the European Communi-                     (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and
ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                       J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;
                           Ireland (1)                                    H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, and D. Louterman-Hubeau,
                                                                          Head of Division, has given a judgment on 5 November 2002,
                                                                          in which it:
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral
agreement with the United States of America — Agreement
authorising the United States of America to revoke, suspend               1.     Declares that, by concluding and applying an Air Services
or limit the traffic rights of air carriers designated by the                    Agreement signed on 23 July 1977 with the United States of
United Kingdom which are not owned by the latter or its                          America which allows that non-member country to revoke,
nationals — Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after                              suspend or limit traffic rights in cases where air carriers
                 amendment, Article 43 EC))                                      designated by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                                Northern Ireland are not owned by it or its nationals, the
                                                                                United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has
                        (2002/C 323/01)                                          failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 52 of the EC Treaty
                                                                                (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC);
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          2.     Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland to pay the costs;
                                                                          3.     Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.
In Case C-466/98, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: F. Benyon) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland (Agents: J. E. Collins, assisted by D. Anderson,
QC), supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
M. A. Fierstra and J. van Bakel): Application for a declaration           (1 ) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
that, by concluding and applying an Air Services Agreement
signed on 23 July 1977 with the United States of America
which provides for the revocation, suspension or limitation of
traffic rights in cases where air carriers designated by the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are not


title: Action brought on 3 October 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-313/95)

text:
25 . 11 . 95             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 315 / 11
Action brought on 3 October 1995 by the Commission of                           provisions necessary to comply with Directives
   the European Communities against the Italian Republic                        92/45/EEC ( ] ), 92/46/EEC ( 2 ), 92/65/EEC ( 3 ), 92/88/
                           ( Case C-3 13/95                                     EEC (4 ), 92/116/EEC ( 5 ), 92/117/EEC ( 6 ) and 92/118/
                                                                                EEC ( 7), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                              ( 95/C 315/20 )
                                                                                obligations under those Directives and the EC Treaty .
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                 2 . Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
3 October 1995 by the Commission of the European                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities , represented by Eugenio de March, Legal
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                  Article 189 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a directive
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                      is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                                                State to which it is addressed, places Member States under
                                                                          an obligation to comply with the time limits prescribed in
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              directives for their transposition . In the case of Directives
                                                                          92/45/EEC, 92/46/EEC, 92/65/EEC, 92/116/EEC, 92/ 117/
1 . Declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed                   EEC and 92/ 118/EEC, the periods prescribed expired on
       period the laws, regulations and administrative                    1 January 1994 and, in the case of Directive 92/88/EEC, it
       provisions necessary to comply with Directives                     expired on 31 December 1993 ; in each case, the Italian
       92/66/EEC C ) and 92/119/EEC ( 2 ), the Italian Republic           Republic had failed to adopt the provision necessary to
       has failed to fulfil its obligations under those Directives        comply with the Directive in question by the required
                                                                          date .
       and the EC Treaty .
2 . Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                         0)   OJ   No  L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992 , p . 35 .
                                                                          (2)  OJ   No  L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                          (3)  OJ   No  L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992 , p . 54 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       (4)  OJ   No  L 321 , 6 . 11 . 1992 , p . 24 .
                                                                          (s)  OJ   No  L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 1 .
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a directive             (6)   OJ  No  L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 38 .
is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member              (7)   OJ  No  L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 49 .
State to which it is addressed, places Member States under
an obligation to comply with the time limits prescribed in
directives for their transposition .
The prescribed periods expired on 1 October 1993 , at which
time the Italian Republic had failed to adopt the provisions              Action brought on 3 October 1995 by the Commission of
necessary for implementation of the Directives referred to in                the European Communities against the Italian Republic
the forms of order sought by the Commission .                                                          ( Case C-3 15 /95 )
                                                                                ( 95 /C 315/22 )
 (') OJ No L 260 , 5 . 9 . 1992 , p . 1 .
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 69 .                              An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                           3 October 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by Eugenio de March, Legal
                                                                           Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 Action brought on 3 October 1995 by the Commission of                     Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
    the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                            ( Case C-3 14/95 )                             The applicant claims that the Court should :
                               ( 95/C 315/21 )
                                                                           1 . Declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
                                                                                periods the laws, regulations and administrative
 An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                       provisions necessary to comply with Directives
 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                             93/48/EEC {'), 93/49/EEC ( 2 ), 93/52/EEC ( 3 ), 93/61 /
  3 October 1995 by the Commission of the European                               EEC (4 ) and 93/85/EEC ( 5 ), the Italian Republic has
  Communities, represented by Eugenio de March, Legal                            failed to fulfil its obligations under those Directives and
 Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                        the EC Treaty .
  Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                 2 . Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
  1 . Declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed                  Article 189 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a directive
        periods the laws, regulations and administrative                    is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member


title: Judgment of the court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2003 in Case C-171/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verfassungsgerichtshof): Wählergruppe "Gemeinsam Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und Grüne GewerkschafterInnen/UG" (EEC-Turkey Association — Freedom of movement for workers — Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Prohibition of discrimination as regards conditions of work — Direct effect — Scope — Legislation of a Member State excluding Turkish workers from eligibility for election to a chamber of workers)

text:
21.6.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 146/9
2.    The calorific value of waste which is to be combusted is not a                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      relevant criterion for the purpose of determining whether that
      operation constitutes a disposal operation as referred to in
      point D10 of Annex IIA to Directive 75/442, as amended by                                        (Sixth Chamber)
      Directive 91/156 and by Decision 96/350, or a recovery
      operation as referred to in point R1 of Annex IIB thereof.
      Member States may establish distinguishing criteria for that                                       of 8 May 2003
      purpose, provided that those criteria comply with those laid
      down in the Directive.
                                                                             in Case C-171/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Verfassungsgerichtshof): Wählergruppe ‘Gemeinsam
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.                                                   Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und Grüne Gewerkschafter-
                                                                                Innen/UG’ (1)
                                                                             (EEC-Turkey Association — Freedom of movement for
                                                                             workers — Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the
                                                                             Association Council — Prohibition of discrimination as
                                                                             regards conditions of work — Direct effect — Scope —
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      Legislation of a Member State excluding Turkish workers
                                                                                from eligibility for election to a chamber of workers)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (2003/C 146/15)
                            of 8 May 2003
in Case C-122/01 P: T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v Com-                                                (Language of the case: German)
           mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Appeal — Bananas — Common organisation of the markets                                          in the European Court Reports)
— Regulation (EC) No 478/95 — Export licence scheme —
    Action for damages — Proof of damage and causal link)
                           (2003/C 146/14)
                                                                             In Case C-171/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                             EC by the Verfassungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
                    (Language of the case: German)                           ruling in the proceedings brought before that court by
                                                                             Wählergruppe ‘Gemeinsam Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       Grüne GewerkschafterInnen/UG’, also represented: Bundesmi-
                    in the European Court Reports)                           nister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit, Kammer für Arbeiter und
                                                                             Angestellte für Vorarlberg, Wählergruppe ‘Vorarlberger Arbei-
                                                                             ter- und Angestelltenbund (ÖAAB) — AK-Präsident Josef Fink’,
                                                                             Wählergruppe ‘FSG — Walter Gelbmann — mit euch ins
In Case C-122/01 P, T. Port GmbH & Co. KG, established in                    nächste Jahrtausend/Liste 2’, Wählergruppe ‘Freiheitliche und
Hambourg (Germany), represented by G. Meier, Rechtwanwalt:                   parteifreie Arbeitnehmer Vorarlberg — FPÖ’, Wählergruppe
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                ‘Gewerkschaftlicher Linksblock’, and Wählergruppe ‘NBZ —
the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 1 February                       Neue Bewegung für die Zukunft’, on the interpretation of
2001 in Case T-1/99 T. Port v Commission [2001] ECR II-                      Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on
465, seeking to have that judgment set aside in part, the other              the development of the Association, adopted by the Associ-
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European                   ation Council established by the Association Agreement
Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and M. Niejahr), the                    between the European Economic Community and Turkey, the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President              Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President
of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris,                       of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris,
F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;               F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
given a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it:                                 the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which
                                                                             it has ruled:
1.    Dismisses the appeal.
                                                                             Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the
2.    Orders T. Port GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
                                                                             development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council
                                                                             established by the Association Agreement between the European
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.                                                   Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as:
                                                                             —     having direct effect in the Member States, and
 ---pagebreak--- C 146/10                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                21.6.2003
—     precluding the application of national legislation which excludes                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      Turkish workers duly registered as belonging to the labour force
      of the host Member State from eligibility for election to the
      general assembly of a body representing and defending the                                         (Second Chamber)
      interests of workers, such as the chambers of workers in Austria.
                                                                                of 8 May 2003
( 1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
                                                                              in Case C-268/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Verwaltungsgericht Weimar): Agrargenossenschaft
                                                                                Alkersleben eG, v Freistaat Thüringen, ( 1)
                                                                              (Milk and milk products — Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                              No 3950/92 — Scheme applicable to the territory of the
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      former German Democratic Republic — Reference quantities
                                                                              — Concepts of ‘producer’ and ‘holding’ — Lessee of a
                                                                                holding situated within that territory)
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (2003/C 146/17)
                           of 10 April 2003
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case C-217/01 P: Michel Hendrickx v Centre européen
pour le développement de la formation professionnelle
                              (Cedefop) ( 1)                                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Appeal — Officials — Resettlement Allowance — Action
which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudi-
                                  cate)
                                                                              In Case C-268/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                              by the Verwaltungsgericht Weimar (Germany) for a prelimi-
                            (2003/C 146/16)                                   nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
                                                                              between Agrargenossenschaft Alkersleben eG, and Freistaat
                      (Language of the case: French)                          Thüringen, on the interpretation of Articles 3(2), 4(4), 5 and
                                                                              9(c) and (d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of
                                                                              28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        and milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1), as amended
                     in the European Court Reports)                           by Commission Regulation (EC) No 751/1999 of 9 April 1999
                                                                              (OJ 1999 L 96, p. 11), the Court (Second Chamber), composed
                                                                              of: R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris
                                                                              (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
In Case C-217/01 P, Michel Hendrickx (represented by                          General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 May
J.-N. Louis and V. Peere): Appeal against the order of the Court              2003, in which it has ruled:
of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber)
of 12 March 2001 in Case T-298/00 Hendrickx v Cedefop
(not published in the ECR), seeking to have that order set aside,             1.    Article 9(c) and (d) of Council Regulation No 3950/92 of
the other party to the proceedings being: Centre européen pour                      28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the
le développement de la formation professionnelle (Cedefop)                          milk and milk products sector, as amended by Commission
(represented by B. Wägenbaur), the Court (Sixth Chamber),                           Regulation (EC) No 751/1999 of 9 April 1999 and read
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,                            with Articles 3(2), 4(4) and 5 of the former regulation, must
C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and                                 be interpreted as meaning that all the milk production of a
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;                         farmer established in the territory of the former German
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April 2003, in                      Democratic Republic obtained on an independent basis in
which it:                                                                           leased facilities situated in that territory but in different länder
                                                                                must be imputed to the reference quantity provisionally allocated
                                                                                to him.
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                              2.    Article 9(c) and (d) of Regulation No 3950/92, as amended
2.    Orders Mr Hendrickx to pay the costs.                                         by Regulation No 751/99, and read with Articles 3(2), 4(4)
                                                                                and 5 of the former regulation, must be interpreted as precluding
                                                                                the competent national authorities from prohibiting a producer
( 1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
                                                                                established in the former German Democratic Republic from
                                                                                transferring his milk production to facilities in a commune
                                                                                which, although forming part of that territory on the date of


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 November 2002 in Case C-204/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Tilmann Klett v Bundesministerin für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom to provide services — Directives 78/686/EEC and 93/16/EEC — Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications — Access to training as a dental practitioner — Act of Accession of the Republic of Austria)

text:
C 7/6                    EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          11.1.2003
(Agents: G. de Bergues and D. Colas): Application for a                       (Agents: initially F. van de Craen, and, subsequently, A. Snoecx):
declaration that, by failing in sufficient measure to classify as             Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws,
special protection areas the territories most suitable for the                regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
conservation of the species of wild bird referred to in Annex I               with Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending
to Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the                        Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of
conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), as amended                  certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ
by Commission Directive 97/49/EC of 29 July 1997 (OJ 1997                     1997 L 73, p. 5) or, alternatively, by failing to communicate
L 223, p. 9), and of migratory species, and, in particular, by                them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
failing to classify a sufficiently large area of land on the Plaine           to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (Sixth
des Maures (France) as a special protection area, the French                  Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), Presi-
Republic has failed to comply with its obligations under the                  dent of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken and
Directive and has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC               J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
Treaty, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                               R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 November
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rap-                  2002, in which it:
porteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                  1.    Declares that, by failing to bring into force within the
given a judgment on 26 November 2002, in which it:                                  period prescribed all the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                                provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 97/11/
1.    Declares that, by not in sufficient measure classifying as special            EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the
      protection areas the territories most suitable for the conservation           assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects
      of the species of wild bird referred to in Annex I to Council                 on the environment, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
      Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of                   its obligations under that directive.
      wild birds, as amended by Commission Directive 97/49/EC of
      29 July 1997, and of migratory species, and, in particular, by          2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
      not classifying a sufficiently large area of the Plaine des Maures
      (France) as a special protection area, the French Republic has
      failed to comply with its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2)        (1 ) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
      of that directive;
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 5 November 2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                              in Case C-204/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                     the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Tilmann Klett v Bundes-
                                                                                ministerin für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur (1)
                       of 19 November 2002
                                                                              (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom to
in Case C-319/01: Commission of the European Communi-                         provide services — Directives 78/686/EEC and 93/16/EEC
                  ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)                               — Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other
                                                                              evidence of formal qualifications — Access to training as a
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                        dental practitioner — Act of Accession of the Republic of
Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environ-                                                Austria)
                   ment — Directive 97/11/EC)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/11)
                            (2003/C 7/10)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                            in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              In Case C-204/01 P: reference to the Court under Article 234
In Case C-319/01, Commission of the European Communities                      EC from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
(Agents: G. zur Hausen and J. Adda) v Kingdom of Belgium                      ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
 ---pagebreak--- 11.1.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 7/7
Tilmann Klett and Bundesministerin für Bildung, Wissenschaft                of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber, Extended
und Kultur — on the interpretation of Article 12 EC, Article 19             Composition) of 7 June 2001 in Case T-187/99 Agrana Zucker
EC, Article 19b of Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July                  und Stärke v Commission [2001] ECR II-1587, seeking to
1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certifi-                have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
cates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of                    being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the            M. Erhart and D. Triantafyllou) — the Court (Third Chamber),
effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to             composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
provide services (OJ 1978 L 233, p. 1), as amended by the Act               F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges:
concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of                   F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made
Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden                  an order on 5 November 2002, the operative part of which is
and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European                   as follows:
Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21 and OJ 1995 L 1,
p. 1), and Articles 3 and 9 of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of
5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and                 1.    The appeal is dismissed;
the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other
evidence of formal qualifications (OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1), as                 2.    Agrana Zucker and Stärke AG shall pay the costs.
amended by that act of accession — the Court (Fourth
Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermanns (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr,
Judges: A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has              (1 ) OJ No C 303, 27.10.01.
made an order on 5 November 2002, the operative part of
which is as follows:
Article 19b of Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978
concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other
evidence of the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry,
including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of
establishment and freedom to provide services, as amended by the Act
concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the
Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, must be             gericht by order of that Court of 15 August 2002 in the
interpreted as meaning that a person whose qualification in general         case of Roberto Adanez-Vega against Bundesanstalt für
medical practice has not been awarded by an Austrian university                                            Arbeit
cannot be admitted to the specialist training in dentistry given in that
Member State.
                                                                                (Case C-372/02)
( 1) OJ No C 227, 11.8.01.
                                                                                (2003/C 7/13)
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                         (Third Chamber)                                    European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht
                                                                            (Federal Social Court) of 15 August 2002, received at the
                       of 5 November 2002                                   Court Registry on 16 October 2002, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            in the case of Roberto Adanez-Vega against Bundesanstalt für
    in Case C-321/01 P: Agrana Zucker und Stärke AG (1)                     Arbeit on the following questions:
(Appeal — State aid — Act of Accession of the Republic of                   1.    Is a person who claims benefits under German unemploy-
Austria — Joint Declaration No 31 annexed to the Final Act                        ment insurance more than two months after completing
     of the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Austria)                       his compulsory national service in Spain subject to
                           (2003/C 7/12)
                                                                                (a)   Spanish legislation under Article 13(2)(e) of Council
                   (Language of the case: German)                                       Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 (1)
                                                                                on the application of social security schemes to
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                  employed persons, to self-employed persons and
                   in the European Court Reports)                                       to members of their families moving within the
                                                                                Community, as amended and updated by Council
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (2),
In Case C-321/01 P: Agrana Zucker und Stärke AG, established                            as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2195/
in Vienna (Austria) (Lawyers: W. Barfuß and H. Wollmann) —                              91 of 25 June 1991 (3) — hereinafter, ‘Regulation
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance                              1408/71’ — or


title: Case T-362/03: Action brought on 31 October 2003 by Antonio Milano against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.12.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 304/33
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                on 31 October 2003 by Antonio Milano, represented and
                                                                           defended by Stefano Scarano.
—     alter the decision in Appeal R 236/2003-2, and annul it
      in part, namely in respect of the goods ‘cheese slices in
      large packs, not intended for the final consumer’;
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                           —     annul the act of the European Commission — European
                                                                                Communities Personnel Selection Office — communi-
                                                                                cated by memorandum of 24 March 2003 and notified
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  to the applicant on 31 March 2003, in which the selection
                                                                                board decided that the applicant’s application was inad-
                                                                                missible on the basis of the request for review made by
The trade mark applied         Three-dimensional mark in the
                                                                                Mr Milano, annul the decision of 10 February 2003 of
for:                           form of a cheese box — Appli-
                                                                                the Commission in which the selection board refused the
                               cation No 2 631 745.
                                                                                applicant admission to the oral test in open competition
                                                                                COM/A/4/02 ‘Administrators’, and annul the decision of
Goods or services con-         Goods in Class 29 (foodstuffs in                  17 July 2003 of the appointing authority in which the
cerned:                        sliced form, in particular slices of              complaint submitted by Mr Milano under Article 90(2)
                               cheese).                                          of the Staff Regulations and lodged at DG ADMIN on
                                                                                24 April 2003 with number R/187/03 was rejected;
Decision         contested     Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of            examiner.
Appeal:                                                                    —     full compensation in damages for economic and moral
                                                                                loss
Decision of the Board of       Appeal dismissed.
Appeal:
                                                                           —     recovery of costs
Grounds of action:             —     Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                                     (EC) No 40/94 has been
                                     infringed.
                               —     It is not to be denied that the
                                     mark has the distinctiveness
                                     necessary for registration.           Pleas and main arguments
                               —     A need to preserve avail-
                                     ability is not apparent.
                                                                           This action is brought against the decision of the selection
                                                                           board for open competition COM/A/4/02 ‘Administrators’,
                                                                           through qualifications and an oral test, with a view to
                                                                           constituting a reserve list for the recruitment of a head of
                                                                           representation in grade A3 in Rome, excluding the applicant
                                                                           from admission to the oral test in the above-mentioned
                                                                           competition.
Action brought on 31 October 2003 by Antonio Milano
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           In particular, the ground that the applicant does not have
                        (Case T-362/03)                                    thorough knowledge of Community institutions, programmes
                                                                           and policies is contested.
                        (2003/C 304/61)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                         In support of his arguments, the applicant claims that this
                                                                           ground is unfounded, unjustified, illogical and inconsistent.
An action against the European Commission was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities


title: Case T-253/02: Action brought on 22 August 2002 by Chafiq Ayadi against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
23.11.2002            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 289/25
Action brought on 22 August 2002 by Chafiq Ayadi                         Furthermore, Article 2 of the Regulation infringes fundamental
against the Council of the European Union and the                        principles of Community law, in particular the principles of
         Commission of the European Communities                          subsidiarity and proportionality and the respect for human
                                                                         rights.
                        (Case T-253/02)
                                                                         Member States are best placed to establish what measures are
                                                                         proportionate, and the total denial of all income and of all un-
                        (2002/C 289/48)                                  earned assistance to an individual is disproportionate. Article 2
                                                                         infringes human rights as it deprives an individual of access to
                                                                         his property and to the means of existence without providing
                  (Language of the case: English)                        any judicial remedy for that denial.
                                                                         Finally, the applicant submits that an essential procedural
                                                                         requirement has been infringed in the making of Article 2,
An action against the Council of the European Union and the              namely the requirement that the Council and the Commission
Commission of the European Communities was brought                       state adequate reasons why the measures considered necessary
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities           cannot be determined by individual Member States.
on 22 August 2002 by Chafiq Ayadi Dublin (Ireland), rep-
resented by A. Lyon, Solicitor and S. Cox, Barrister.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002
      of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive
      measures directed against certain persons and entities
      associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network
      and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC)             Action brought on 4 September 2002 by REWE-ZEN-
      No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods                TRAL AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
      and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban                   Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      and extending the freeze of funds and other financial
      resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan ( 1) and
      so much of Article 4 as relates to Article 2;                                                (Case T-267/02)
—     order the Council to pay the costs.                                                          (2002/C 289/49)
                                                                         (Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                         of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is named in Annex I to the contested Regulation            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
as a person to whom Article 2 applies. Under this provision,             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
the applicant’s bank accounts have been frozen.                          Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         4 September 2002 by REWE-ZENTRAL AG, Köln (Germany),
                                                                         represented by H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumenröder,
The applicant submits that the provisions enabling the Security          Chr. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K Brandt, A. Franke, U. Ste-
Council of the United Nations to call upon its Members to                phani, B. Allekotte, E. Pfrang, K. Lochner and B. Ertle, lawyers,
apply certain measures do not impose upon Members of the                 with an address for service in Luxembourg. Fritidsresor AB,
United Nations a duty to apply those measures. Members are               Stockholm (Sweden) was an additional party to the proceed-
free to choose how to respond to the Security Council’s call.            ings before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant further alleges that the Council was not com-
petent to make Article 2 of the Regulation in that Articles 60
and 301 EC did not confer on the Council the power to do so.             —     annul decision R 0888/2001 of the First Board of Appeal
The Council and the Commission misused their powers in that                    of OHIM of 1 July 2002;
Article 2 of the Regulation does not in fact pursue the
objectives of Articles 60 and 301 EC.                                    —     order the Office to pay the costs.


title: Case T-275/01: Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez Moreno against European Parliament

text:
C 3/46                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.1.2002
Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Valmont Neder-                     Lastly, the applicant asserts that the Commission misused its
land B.V. against the Commission of the European Com-                   powers when assessing the value of the land at the time of the
                            munities                                    purchase and when assessing the element of State aid relating
                                                                        to what the applicant maintains is a car park used by the
                                                                        public, and concerning the sums charged by way of interest
                         (Case T-274/01)                                on the alleged State aid.
                          (2002/C 3/79)
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez
European Communities on 22 October 2001 by Valmont                                  Moreno against European Parliament
Nederland B.V., established at Maarheeze (Netherlands), rep-
resented by André Van Landuyt, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.                                                                                (Case T-275/01)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       (2002/C 3/80)
(1) annul Decision No C 2001 2231 of the Commission of                                    (Language of the case: French)
      18 July 2001;
(2) order the Commission, pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules
      of Procedure, to pay all the costs of these proceedings.
                                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                        26 October 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez Moreno, residing in
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Berlin, represented by Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.
According to the contested decision of the Commission, the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
applicant has received State aid in the form of a reduced
purchase price for the building land on which the applicant
now maintains its establishment in the Netherlands and a                —    annul the decision of the President of the European
subsidy for the installation of a car park on it. The Commission             Parliament, contained in a letter of 19 July 2001, rejecting
is demanding that the aid received be repaid.                                the applicant’s request and thus confirming the decision
                                                                             of the European Parliament no longer to call upon the
                                                                             services of freelance interpreters who have reached the
The applicant maintains that, in adopting its decision, the                  age of 65 years, as in the case of the applicant;
Commission has infringed Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
According to the applicant, the Commission has not shown
that the applicant benefited from an aid measure in the                 —    annul the inter-institutional decision referred to by the
purchase of the building land. It claims that that purchase took             Secretary General of the European Parliament in the letter
place on market terms and conditions. Moreover, any aid                      of 5 March 2001;
which may have been received had no effect on competition
within the common market or on trade between Member
                                                                        —    consequently, acknowledge the applicant’s right to con-
States.
                                                                             tinue to provide her services as a freelance interpreter,
                                                                             either in the service of the European Parliament or any
                                                                             other Community institution, beyond the age of 65;
The applicant also pleads infringement of essential procedural
requirements, more specifically of the right to a fair hearing.
According to the applicant, the Commission relies on a report           —    order compensation for the material and non-material
on the value of the land which was drawn up previously                       damage suffered by the applicant, provisionally assessed
without any involvedment on the part of the applicant.                       at one euro;
Likewise, after the procedure was opened pursuant to
Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, its observations were not taken
into account.                                                           —    order the defendant to pay all the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.1.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 3/47
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          on 26 October 2001 by Mély Garroni, residing in Rome,
                                                                         represented by Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.
The applicant is a freelance interpreter who has worked
regularly for the European Parliament since 1986. She has also           The applicant claims that the Court should:
worked regularly in the same capacity for the Commission. In
the course of the month in which she reached the age of 65,
the applicant was informed orally that the Commission had                —     annul the inter-institutional decision of the European
purportedly adopted a decision providing that, under a full                    Union, as referred to in the letter from G. Macario of
application of Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment of                   24 January 2001, rendering henceforth impossible for
Other Servants of the European Communities (CEOS), free-                       the European Parliament, as a result of the application of
lance interpreters could no longer be engaged beyond the age                   Article 78 CEOS, as amended, to retain or recruit freelance
of 65. In December 2000 the applicant learned informally that                  interpreters — such as the applicant — beyond the age
the European Parliament was obliged to apply that decision                     of 65 years;
with effect from 1 April 2001.
                                                                         —     in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the President
                                                                               of the European Parliament, contained in a letter of
The applicant, among others, lodged a complaint against the                    20 July 2001, rejecting the applicant’s complaint;
memorandum informing her of the inter-institutional decision
no longer to recruit freelance interpreters over the age of 65
years. The President of the European Parliament rejected that            —     consequently uphold the applicant’s right to continue to
complaint.                                                                     provide services to the European Parliament — or any
                                                                               other institution — beyond the age-limit of 65 years;
In support of her application, the applicant claims that                 —     order provisional payment of one euro to the applicant
Article 78 CEOS cannot be relied upon as a basis for a rule                    by way of compensation for the material and non-
setting the age of 65 years as a limit for freelance interpreters.             material damage suffered;
That provision is a derogation from the Staff Regulations and
refers to an agreement between the European Parliament, the              —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Council of Europe and the Assembly of the Western European
Union. Article 78 makes no mention, either express or implied,
of Article 74 CEOS which provides for the termination of
auxiliary staff contracts; moreover, freelance interpreters do
not have a contract within the meaning of Article 74 CEOS.               Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant pleads, furthermore, breach of the principle of            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
non-retroactivity and of the principle of non-discrimination             relied upon in Case T-275/01 Alvarez Moreno v Parliament.
and of acquired rights, legitimate expectations, sound adminis-
tration and legal certainty. In addition to her claims for
annulment, the applicant also seeks compensation for the
material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.
                                                                         Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Romuald Stevens
                                                                             against Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Mély Garroni                                                (Case T-277/01)
                 against European Parliament
                                                                                (2002/C 3/82)
                        (Case T-276/01)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         (2002/C 3/81)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 26 October 2001 by Romuald
An action against the European Parliament was brought before             Stevens, residing in Bertem (Belgium), represented by Jean-
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, lawyers.


9.12.2000             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 355/19
       Removal from the register of Case C-139/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-445/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 355/38)                                                     (2000/C 355/41)
By order of 13 July 2000 the President of the Sixth Chamber         By order of 1 August 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-139/99:             the register of Case C-445/99: Commission of the European
Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.                   Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                           (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-22/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-420/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 355/39)                                                     (2000/C 355/42)
By order of 19 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 2 August 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-22/00: Commission of the European            the register of Case C-420/99 Commission of the European
Communities v Ireland.                                              Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-437/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 355/40)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-42/00 (1)
By order of 28 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice                             (2000/C 355/43)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-437/99: Commission of the European           By order of 3 August 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
Communities v Ireland.                                              of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-42/00: Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.                                           Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 June 2000 in Case C-258/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretore di Firenze): criminal proceedings against Giovanni Carra and Others (Dominant position — Public undertakings — Placement of workforce — Statutory monopoly)

text:
23.9.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 273/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Public placement offices are subject to the prohibition contained in
                                                                             Article 86 of the Treaty, so long as the application of that provision
                                                                             does not obstruct the particular task conferred on them. A Member
                        (Fourth Chamber)                                     State which prohibits any activity as intermediary between supply
                                                                             and demand on the employment market, unless it is carried on by
                           of 8 June 2000                                    those offices, is in breach of Article 90(1) of the Treaty where it
                                                                             creates a situation in which those offices cannot avoid infringing
                                                                             Article 86 of the Treaty. That is the case, in particular, in the
in Case C-258/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    following circumstances:
the Pretore di Firenze): criminal proceedings against
                 Giovanni Carra and Others (1)
                                                                             —     the public placement offices are manifestly unable to satisfy
                                                                                demand on the market for all types of activity; and
(Dominant position — Public undertakings — Placement of
               workforce — Statutory monopoly)
                                                                             —     the actual placement of employees by private companies is
                          (2000/C 273/01)                                          rendered impossible by the maintenance in force of statutory
                                                                                provisions under which such activities are prohibited and
                                                                                non-observance of that prohibition gives rise to penal and
                                                                                administrative sanctions; and
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                             —     the placement activities in question could extend to the nationals
                                                                                or to the territory of other Member States.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             A national court which is called upon, within the limits of its
In Case C-258/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                jurisdiction, to apply provisions of Community law is under a duty to
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretore di Firenze,              give full effect to those provisions, if necessary refusing of its own
Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings                  motion to apply any conflicting provision of national legislation, even
before that court against Giovanni Carra and Others — on the                 if adopted subsequently, and it is not necessary for the court to request
interpretation of Articles 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now                   or await the prior setting aside of such provisions by legislative or
Articles 82 EC and 86 EC) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),                      other constitutional means.
composed of: D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Ad-
ministrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 June
2000, in which it has ruled:                                                 (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
Even within the framework of Article 90 of the EC Treaty (now
Article 86 EC), Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) has
direct effect and confers on individuals rights which the national
courts must protect.


title: Case C-641/11: Order of the President of the Court of 21 January 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/18

         Order of the President of the Court of 21 January 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-641/11) (1)

   2013/C 108/40
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 6 December 1995 in Case T-220/95 R: Christophe Gimenez v. Committee of the Regions

text:
 3 . 2 . 96            EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 31 / 19
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             1 . pending delivery of the final order in the procedure
                       of 9 January 1996                                   for interim measures, the recruitment procedure
                                                                           commenced by competition CdR A/03/95 is suspended,
 in Case T-23/95 : Efthimia Bitha and Others v. Commission
                                                                           including the assessment of the tests held to date, the
               of the European Communities ( l )                           holding ofany further tests, the drawing-up of the list of
 (Cover against the risk of accident and of occupational                   suitable candidates and any appointments which may be
 disease for officials of the Community — Payment of the                   made on the basis of that list;
 benefits provided for in Article 73 (2) of the Staff
   Regulations — Accidental death — Underwater diving)                2 . the costs are reserved.
                           ( 96/C 31 /44 )
                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-23/95 : Efthimia Bitha, Vasiliki Bitha and
Georgios Bitha, the persons entitled under Krinio Bitha, a
                                                                      Action brought on 7 November 1995 by European Fertilizer
former official of the Commission of the European
                                                                     Manufacturers Association against Council of the European
Communities, residing in Thessaloniki ( Greece ),                                                  Union
represented by Jean-Noel Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                                         ( Case T-2 10/95 )
Fiduciaire Myson Sari ., 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of                                      ( 96/C 31 /46 )
the European Communities (Agents : Julian Currall and
Jean-Luc Fagnart) — application for the annulment of the
decision of the Commission of 26 April 1994 refusing the                             (Language of the case: English)
applicants the benefits provided for in Article 73 ( 2 ) of the
Staff Regulations of officials in the event of the accidental        An action against the Council of the European Union was
death of an official — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber ), composed of D. P. M. Barrington, President, and           Communities on 7 November 1995 by the European
K. Lenaerts and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has            Fertilizer Manufacturers Association, represented by
given a judgment on 9 January 1996 , in which it:                    Dominique Voillemot of Gide Loyrette, Paris, with an
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
1 . dismisses the action .                                           Zeyen Beghin Feider, 67 rue Ermesinde .
2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
(■) OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .                                       — annul       Article   1    of   Council     Regulation    ( EC )
                                                                          No 2022/95 ,
                                                                     — order that such anti-dumping duty imposed by that
                                                                          provision be maintained until the competent institutions
                                                                          adopt the measures needed to comply with this
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                     judgment,
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 6 December 1995
                                                                     — order to the Council to pay the costs .
in Case T-220/95 R: Christophe Gimenez v. Committee of
                           the Regions                               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                          ( 96/C 31 /45 )
                                                                     The applicant, an association representing the European
                                                                     ammonium industry, challenges the abovementioned
                (Language of the case: French)                       regulation, in so far as by fixing in it the profit margin of the
                                                                     European industry at 5 % on actual costs , the defendant
In Case T-220/95 R: Christophe Gimenez, residing at 29               institution made a manifest error of appraisal of the facts of
                                                                     the case .
Avenue du Mont Kemmel, Brussels, represented by Eric
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an addres for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du                The applicant cannot agree with the Commission's
Fort Rheinsheim, v. Committee of the Regions, 27 Galerie              statement to the effect that a profit of 5 % on costs has been
Ravenstein, Brussels — application for suspension of the             used in recent anti-dumping cases concerning urea and UAN
procedure in competition CdR A/03/95 or of the prospective           solutions and was therefore considered as a reasonable
appointments to be made in consequence of that                       profit margin for nitrogen fertilizers in the present case . The
competition — the President of the Court of First Instance           choice of a 5 % profit margin cannot be used in the
made an order on 6 December 1995 , the operative part of             proceedings concerning two different products, other than
which is as follows :                                                 ammonium nitrate .


title: Case C-410/03: Action brought on 1 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
13.12.2003             EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 304/13
(5) Must the term ‘offering’ in the provisions referred to in           Pleas in law and main arguments
     Question (1) be construed as also meaning the offering
     (for sale) of original branded goods (bearing a trade mark
     within the meaning of the directive, the UBL and/or                The period for transposition of the directive expired on 30 June
     Regulation 40/94) which are stored in a customs office             2002.
     or warehouse within the territory of a Member State,
     which have not been introduced into the EEA by the
                                                                        (1) OJ 2000 L 14 of 20.1.2000, p. 29.
     proprietor of the trade mark or with his consent, which
     come from outside the EEA and which have the status of
     non-Community goods (for example, T 1 or AAD), in the
     circumstances set out above in Questions (3) and (4)?
(6) With which of the parties does the burden of proof rest
     as regards the acts mentioned above under (1), (2) and             Action brought on 30 September 2003 by the Italian
     (5)?                                                               Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the                                 (Case C-430/03)
    Community trade mark (OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1).
                                                                                (2003/C 304/19)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 30 September 2003 by the Italian Republic
                                                                        represented by Ivo M. Braguglia, acting as Agent and Maurizio
                                                                        Fiorilli, Avvocato dello Stato.
Action brought on 1 October 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        annul Commission Decision C(2003) 2587 def. of 22 July
                         (Case C-410/03)                                2003 in so far as it excludes from Community financing the
                                                                        following entries:
                         (2003/C 304/18)                                a)    Fruit and vegetables — ITALY — 1515 — Flat-rate
                                                                              corrections of 5 % (2000/2001) and 10 % (1999/2000)
                                                                              for shortcomings in controls: EUR 22 251 827,08
                                                                        b)    Olive oil, fibre plants and seed — ITALY —1210 —
                                                                              Flat-rate correction of 2 % for shortcomings in the
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                              management and effectiveness of controls: EUR
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 October
                                                                              13 048 335,00.
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities
represented by Karen Banks and Knut Simonsson, acting as
Agents.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicant submits that the flat-rate corrections concerning
                                                                        the system of aid for the processing of tomatoes and the flat-
—    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations            rate correction concerning the system of production aid for
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with             olive oil, notified by Commission Decision 2003/536/EC (1) of
     Directive 1999/95/EC (1) of the European Parliament and            22 July 2003 (notified under document number C(2003)
     of the Council of 13 December 1999 concerning the                  2587) are unlawful in so far as they are based on inadequate
     enforcement of provisions in respect of seafarers’ hours           investigation and in breach of the rules of co-operation in
     of work on board ships calling at Community ports or               good faith. According to the applicant, the financial corrections
     by failing to communicate those provisions to the                  should therefore be annulled.
     Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under that directive;                                  (1) OJ 2003 L 184 of 23.7.2003, p. 42.
—    order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case T-269/01: Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Confederación Empresarial Vasca against Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.1.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 3/43
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2001) 1763                  The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2001) 1761
final of 11 July 2001 declaring incompatible with the common             final of 11 July 2001 declaring incompatible with the common
market the tax reductions under Article 26 of Norma Foral                market the tax reductions under Article 26 of Norma Foral
(Regional Law) No 3/1996 of 26 June 1996 on corporation                  (Regional Law) No 7/1996 of 4 July 1996 on corporation tax
tax, which provides for a reduction of 99 %, 75 %, 50 % and              (Boletı́n Oficial del Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa of 10 July
25 % of the taxable basis for the aforementioned tax applicable          1996), which provides for a reduction of 99 %, 75 %, 50 %
during the first four tax years for undertakings which set up            and 25 % of the taxable basis for the aforementioned tax
business in the Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya with effect from        applicable during the first four tax years for undertakings
the entry into force of the Law, provided that they have                 which set up business in the Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa
disbursed capital amounting to more than PTA 20 million                  with effect from the entry into force of the Law, provided
(EUR 120 202), invest more than PTA 80 million                           that they have disbursed capital amounting to more than
(EUR 430 810) and create more than 10 new jobs.                          PTA 20 million (EUR 120 202), invest more than
                                                                         PTA 80 million (EUR 430 810) and create more than 10 new
                                                                         jobs.
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
applicant are identical with those put forward in Case
T-225/01.                                                                The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
                                                                         applicant are identical with those put forward in Case
                                                                         T-225/01.
Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Confederación
Empresarial Vasca against Commission of the European                     Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Confederación
                           Communities                                   Empresarial Vasca against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                          (Case T-269/01)
                                                                                (Case T-270/01)
                           (2002/C 3/74)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/75)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
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 22 October 2001 by Confedera-
                                                                         European Communities on 22 October 2001 by the Confeder-
ción Empresarial Vasca, whose registered office is at Bilbao
                                                                         ación Empresarial Vasca, whose registered office is in Bilbao
(Spain), represented by Marcos Araujo Boyd, lawyer.
                                                                         (Spain), represented by Marcos Araujo Boyd, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the defendant’s decision of 11 July 2001 on the              —     annul the defendant’s decision of 11 July 2001 regarding
      system of State aid applied by Spain to certain newly                    State aid granted by Spain to undertakings in Guipúzcoa
      created undertakings in Guipúzcoa (Spain);                              in the shape of a tax credit of 45 % of the amount
                                                                               invested;
—     in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and 4 of the defendant’s
      decision of 11 July 2001 on the system of State aid                —     in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and 4 of the defendant’s
      applied by Spain to certain newly created undertakings in                decision of 11 July 2001 regarding State aid granted by
      Guipúzcoa, inasmuch as the obligation to recover the                    Spain to undertakings in Guipúzcoa in the shape of a tax
      amounts not levied by the regional revenue authorities of                credit of 45 % of the amount invested inasmuch as the
      Guipúzcoa pursuant to the disputed tax legislation is                   obligation to recover the amounts not levied by the
      unjustified;                                                             regional revenue authorities of Guipúzcoa is unjustified;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-78/04: Action brought on 18 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/25

         Action brought on 18 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
   (Case C-78/04)
   (2004/C 94/54)
   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Prof. Dr. U. Wölker and M. Konstantinidis, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(4) of Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, (1) under Article 9(3) to (5) thereof, under Annex IV, and under Article 1 in conjunction with Sections 1.1 and 6.6 of Annex I, in that:

                           (a)

                           the definition of ‘existing installation’ under Article 2(4) has not been fully transposed into federal law (Gewerbeordnung 1994 (Industrial Code 1994),

                           (b)

                           the requirements relating to permit conditions laid down in Article 9(4) have not been fully implemented in federal legislation (Gewerbeordnung 1994) and those laid down in Article 9(3) to (5) have not been fully implemented in the legislation of the Land Niederösterreich (NÖ Elektrizitätswesengesetz 2001 (Lower Austria Electricity Act 2001),

                           (c)

                           Annex IV has not been fully implemented in federal legislation (Gewerbeordnung 1994) and in the legislation of the Land Niederösterreich (NÖ Elektrizitätswesengesetz 2001),

                           (d)

                           the Directive has not been implemented in federal legislation and the legislation of the Land Salzburg, nor fully implemented in the legislation of the Land Burgenland (Burgenländisches Elektrizitätswesengesetz 1999), as regards the combustion installations referred to in Section 1.1 of Annex I,

                           (e)

                           the Directive has not been implemented, as regards the installations for intensive rearing referred to in Section 6.6 of Annex I, in the legislation of the Länder of Burgenland, Salzburg and Tirol;

               2.

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   Although the time-limit for implementation of the Directive expired on 30 October 1999, the Republic of Austria has still not implemented at all, or has implemented only inadequately, certain of its provisions (Art 2(4), Article 9(3) to (5), Annex IV and Article 1 in conjunction with Sections 1.1 and 6.6 of Annex I).

      (1)  OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26.


title: Case T-384/03: Action brought on 17 November 2003 by Reti Televisive Italiane — RTI against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 21/44                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       24.1.2004
Finally, the applicant submits that in calculating the                      Pleas in law and main arguments
countervailing duty, the defendant infringed Articles 5 and 7
of Regulation 2026/97, the Guidelines on the calculation of
the amount of the subsidy in countervailing duty proceedings,               Applicant for regis-         Europortal Italia SpA, succeeded
Articles 14 and 19 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and                    tration of the Com-          by the applicant.
Countervailing Measures, and committed a manifest error of                  munity trade mark:
assessment.
                                                                            Community trade mark         Word mark ‘Jumpy’ — regis-
                                                                            sought:                      tration application No 1.332.006,
(1) OJ L 212 of 22 August 2003, p. 1.                                                                    registration sought in respect of a
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on                                              number of goods in Classes 9 and
    protection against subsidized imports from countries not mem-
    bers of the European Community (OJ L 288, p. 1).
                                                                                16.
(3) See recital 48 and following of the contested decision.
                                                                            Proprietor of mark or        Microarea SpA.
                                                                            sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                            sition proceedings:
                                                                            Mark or sign cited in        Italian word mark ‘Jump’ for
                                                                            opposition:                  goods in Classes 9 and 16.
                                                                            Decision of the Oppo-        Opposition upheld and appli-
Action brought on 17 November 2003 by Reti Televisive                       sition Division:             cation rejected.
Italiane — RTI against the Office for Harmonisation in
  the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                            Decision of the Board of     Appeal dismissed.
                                                                            Appeal:
                           (Case T-384/03)
                                                                            Pleas in law:                Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
                                                                                of Regulation No 40/94 (‘likeli-
                            (2004/C 21/88)                                                               hood of confusion’).
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
17 November 2003 by Reti Televisive Italiane — RTI, rep-                    Action brought on 25 November 2003 by Proteome, Inc
resented by Giorgio Floridia and Raffaella Floridia, lawyers.               against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Microarea SpA was also a party to the proceedings before the
Board of Appeal.                                                                                (Case T-387/03)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                          (2004/C 21/89)
—     annul the decision of 11 September 2003 of the First
      Board of Appeal; or                                                                     (Language of the case: English)
—     in the alternative, interpret the decision of the Opposition
      Division No 2637/2002 of 30 August 2002 on Oppo-
      sition No B321994 to the effect that it does not preclude             An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      the valid registration of the trade mark ‘Jumpy’ to                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
      distinguish it from the similarly-named Internet portal;              the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                            25 November 2003 by Proteome, Inc., Beverley, Massachu-
—     make an order pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of               setts, USA, represented by Dr Michael Edenborough, Barrister,
      Procedure requiring the defendant, as the unsuccessful                Mr Cerryg Jones, Ms Alexandra Brodie and Ms Carina Loweth
      party, to pay the costs.                                              Solicitors.