title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal des Affaires de Sécurité Sociale des Bouches du Rhône by judgment of that Tribunal of 1 March 1996 in the case of J. Farias against Caisse Régionale d'Assurance Maladie du Sud-Est (Case C-339/96)

text:
 No C 354/22              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      23 . 11 . 96
 — Infringement of Article 30 of the EC Treaty: the                       Security Tribunal, Bouches du Rhone] of 1 March 1996 ,
       infringement of Article 10 ( 6 ) of Directive 93/37/EEC            received at the Court Registry on 15 October 1996, for a
       amounts at the same time to an infringement of                     preliminary ruling in the case ofJ. Farias v. Caisse Regionale
       Article 30 of the EC Treaty. The same is true of the               d'Assurance Maladie du Sud-Est [South-East Regional
       preference for Lower Austrian materials and/or                     Health Insurance Fund] on the following question:
       undertakings contained in point 2.10 of the AAVB
       where the tenders involved are of equal value to other             Can a Portuguese national residing in Portugal who reached
       tenders .                                                          the age of 60 on 17 May 1992, and did not receive , in
                                                                          addition to his invalidity pension, supplementary allowance
— Infringement of Directive 88/665/EEC ( directive on                     from the Fonds National de Solidarite [National Solidarity
       review procedures ): contrary to Articles 1 and 2 ( 1 ) ( h )      Fund] solely because he was resident outside France, claim
       of the Directive, point 2.5 of the AAVB excludes ab initio         under Article 2 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1247/92 ( ] ) that his
       and unconditionally all claims which might arise on the            entitlement was acquired before 1 June 1992 , the date of
       part of contractors in connection with an award                    entry into force of that regulation ?
       procedure .
                                                                          ( 1 ) OJ No L 136 , 19 . 5 . 1992 , p . 1 .
 ( ] ) OJ No L 199 , 9 . 8 . 1993 , p. 54.
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 33 .
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura di Roma by              Circondariale di Bolzano, Sezione Distaccata di Vipiteno,
order of that court of 2 October 1996 in the case of 1 .                 by order of that court of 17 August 1996 in the case of
CO.NA.TA. — Consorzio Nazionale Tabacchi Soc. Coop a                     Dilexport S.r.l. v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello
r.l. and 2 . Agrindustria Sri against AIMA — Azienda di                                                    Stato
           Stato per gli Interventi sul Mercato Agricolo                                             Case C-343/96
                 ( Cases C-332/96 and C-333/96 )                                                      ( 96/C 354/44
                               ( 96/C 354/42 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   European Communities by an order of the Pretura
European Communities by orders of the Pretura di Roma                    Circondariale di Bolzano, Sezione Distaccata di Vipiteno
[Magistrates Court, Rome] of 2 October 1996 , received at                 [District Magistrate 's Court, Bolzano, Vipiteno Division] of
the Court Registry on 8 October 1996 , for a preliminary                  17 August 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry
ruling in the case of 1 . CO.NA.TA. — Consorzio Nazionale                on 30 September 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Tabacchi Soc . Coop a r.l . and 2 . Agrindustria Sri against             Dilexport Sri . v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
AIMA — Aziende di Stato per gli Interventi sul Mercato                   on the following questions :
Agricolo [State Intervention Agency] on the question of the
validity of Article 5 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3477/93 ( ! ) of           1 . Must Community law be interpreted as precluding the
17 December 1993 in connection with the principle of the                        adoption by a Member State of a provision such as
non-retroactivity of Community legislation since it cannot                      Article 29 of Italian Law No 428 of 29 December 1990
be justified either by the previous regulations or by an                        which makes the repayment of charges levied in breach
overriding public interest that warrants the sacrifice of                       of Community law subject to time-limits for
rights acquired on the basis of previous legislation, and                       prescription or lapse and to conditions as to proof which
entails an unforeseeable modification to the detriment of                       are different from and more restrictive than those laid
subjective rights, thereby undermining the legitimate                           down in the general rules of civil law ? In particular, with
expectations of the addressees of' the measure in                               regard to the principle that the procedural conditions for
question .                                                                      exercising the right to reimbursement established by
                                                                                national law 'may not be less favourable than those
(!) OJ No L 317, 18 . 12 . 1993 , p . 30 .                                      relating to similar actions of a domestic nature', what is
                                                                                to be understood by the expression ' similar actions of a
                                                                                domestic nature '?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal des                   2 . Do the fundamental principles of the Community order
Affaires de Sécurité Sociale des Bouches du Rhône by                            preclude the introduction by a Member State — in a
judgment of that Tribunal of 1 March 1996 in the case of J.                     limited manner and with reference only to a specific
Farias against Caisse Régionale d'Assurance Maladie du                          sphere consisting of a homogenous category of fiscal
                                   Sud-Est                                      levies made up in particular of charges linked to the
                                                                                Community order — of special derogating provisions to
                            ( Case C-339/96 )                                   restrict and limit the right to recovery of sums unduly
                              ( 96/C 354/43 )                                   paid, thus derogating from the general conditions for
                                                                                recovery of sums unduly paid laid down in Article 2033
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          of the Civil Code ? In particular, may the principle of
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal des                            non-discrimination be understood in a restrictive sense,
Affaires de Securite Sociale des Bouches du Rhone [Social                       and may it thus be considered that a provision of a


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 12 November 1998 in Case C-352/96: Italian Republic v. Council of the European Union (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1522/96 - Introduction and administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice)

text:
C 397/14              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.12.98
     coordination of procedures for the award of public              Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the
     service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that           common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector
     the legislature drew a distinction between needs in the         (OJ L 177, 1.7.1981, p. 4), and Council Regulation (EEC)
     general interest not having an industrial or commercial         No 2225/86 of 15 July 1986 laying down measures for
     character and needs in the general interest having an           the marketing of sugar produced in the French overseas
     industrial or commercial character.                             departments and for the equalisation of the price
                                                                     conditions with preferential raw sugar (OJ L 194,
                                                                     17.7.1986, p. 7) Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber),
2. The term needs in the general interest, not having an            composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,
     industrial or commercial character' does not exclude            H. Ragnemalm and K. M. Ioannou (Rapporteur), Judges;
     needs which are or can be satisfied by private                  N. Fennelli, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
     undertakings as well.                                           given a judgment on 12 November 1998, in which it has
                                                                     ruled:
3. The status of a body governed by public law is not
     dependent on the relative importance, within its                In an industrial complex that includes:
     business as a whole, of the meeting of needs in the
     general interest not having an industrial or commercial
     character. It is likewise immaterial that commercial            Ð installations which first process sugar beet and extract
     activities may be carried out by a separate legal person             the sugar-bearing liquids, and
     forming part of the same group or concern as it.
                                                                     Ð installations which then convert into white sugar the
4. The second subparagraph of Article 1(b) of Directive                   liquids and syrups in question, which are enriched by
     92/50/EEC must be interperted as meaning that the                    the addition of raw cane sugar from the French
     existence or absence of needs in the general interest                overseas departments,
     not having an industrial or commercial character must
     be appraised objectively, the legal form of the
     provisions in which those needs are mentioned being             the latter installations cannot be regarded, for the
     immaterial in that respect.                                     processing of raw cane sugar from the French overseas
                                                                     departments, either permanently or intermittently, as a
                                                                     production unit' or as a refinery' within the meaning of
(1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
                                                                     the third subparagraph of Article 9(4) of Council
                                                                     Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the
                                                                     common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector,
                                                                     as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1482/85 of
                                                                     23 May 1985.
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                (1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
                       (Fourth Chamber)
                     of 12 November 1998
in Case C-269/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Administratif de Paris): Sucreries et
Raffineries d'Erstein SA v. Fonds d'Intervention et de                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
        ReÂgularisation du MarcheÂ du Sucre (FIRS) (1)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 and (EEC)
No 2225/86 Ð Aid for the marketing of cane sugar                                         of 12 November 1998
produced in the French overseas departments Ð Concept                in Case C-352/96: Italian Republic v. Council of the
                           of refinery)                                                   European Union (1)
                         (98/C 397/22)                               (Action for annulment Ð Regulation (EC) No 1522/96 Ð
                                                                     Introduction and administration of certain tariff quotas
                 (Language of the case: French)                                   for imports of rice and broken rice)
                                                                                (98/C 397/23)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-269/96: reference to the Court under Article 177             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Administratif, Paris                        published in the European Court Reports)
(France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Sucreries et Raffineries
d'Erstein SA and Fonds d'Intervention et de ReÂgularisation          In Case C-352/96: Italian Republic (Agent: Umberto
du MarcheÂ du Sucre Ð on the interpretation of Council               Leanza, assisted by Danilo Del Gaizo) v. Council of the
 ---pagebreak--- 19.12.98             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 397/15
European Union (Agent: Antonio Tanca) Ð application                  1. Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of
for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1522/                     14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws
96 of 24 July 1996 opening and providing for the                          of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of
administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice               employees' rights in the event of transfers of
and broken rice (OJ L 190, 31.7.1996, p. 1), in particular                undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses is to be
Articles 3, 4 and 9 thereof Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),                  interpreted as meaning that the directive applies where
composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,                  a company in voluntary liquidation transfers all or
J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen                     part of its assets to another company from which the
and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate-General;                   worker then takes his orders which the company in
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 November                  liquidation states are to be carried out.
1998, in which it:
                                                                     2. Article 3(1) of Directive 77/187/EEC does not
1. Dismisses the application;                                             preclude a worker employed by the transferor at the
                                                                          date of the transfer of an undertaking from objecting
                                                                          to the transfer of his contract of employment or
2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                          employment relationship to the transferee, provided he
                                                                          decides to do so of his own accord. It is for the
                                                                          national court to determine whether the contract of
(1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
                                                                          employment proposed by the transferee involves a
                                                                          substantial change in working conditions to the
                                                                          detriment of the worker. If it does, Article 4(2) of the
                                                                          directive requires Member States to provide that the
                                                                          employer is to be considered responsible for the
                                                                          termination.
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                     (1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.
                      (Second Chamber)
                    of 12 November 1998
in Case C-399/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour du Travail de Bruxelles): EuropieÁces SA, in
liquidation, v. Wilfried Sanders, Automotive Industries
                  Holding Company SA (1)                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Social policy Ð Harmonisation of laws Ð Transfers of                                        (Sixth Chamber)
undertakings Ð Safeguarding of workers' rights Ð
Directive 77/187/EEC Ð Scope Ð Transfer of an                                             of 12 November 1998
            undertaking in voluntary liquidation)                    in Case C-415/96: Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of
                        (98/C 397/24)                                                 the European Communities (1)
                                                                     (State aid for undertakings in the textile sector Ð
                                                                     Consequences of an annulling judgment for acts
               (Language of the case: French)                                       preparatory to the act annulled)
                                                                                (98/C 397/25)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
In Case C-399/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Cour du Travail de Bruxelles                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before                     published in the European Court Reports)
that court between EuropieÁces SA, in liquidation, and
Wilfried Sanders, Automotive Industries Holding
Company SA Ð on the interpretation of Council Directive              In Case C-415/96: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Luis PeÂrez
77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of               de Ayala Becerril) v. Commission of the European
the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding           Communities (Agents: Francisco Santaolalla and Ramón
of employees' rights in the event of transfers of                    Vidal Puig) Ð application for annulment of Commission
undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ L 61,            Decision 97/242/EC of 18 September 1996 amending
5.3.1977, p. 26) Ð the Court (Second Chamber),                       Decision 92/317/EEC on State aid in favour of Hilaturas y
composed of: G. Hirsch, President of the Chamber, G. F.              Tejidos Andaluces SA, now called MediterraÂneo TeÂcnica
Mancini (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Judges; G.                    Textil SA, and its buyer (OJ L 96, 11.4.1997, p. 30) Ð
Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given             the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. Hirsch
a judgment on 12 November 1998, in which it has ruled:               (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and K. M.


title: Case T-256/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2009 — Wrigley v OHIM — Mejerigaarden (POLAR ICE) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/49

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2009 — Wrigley v OHIM — Mejerigaarden (POLAR ICE)
   (Case T-256/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2009/C 282/94
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Chicago, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Schäffler and A. Bognár, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: W. Verburg, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Mejerigaarden Holding A/S (Thisted, Denmark) (represented by: A. Ellermann Holmbom, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2008 (Case R 845/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Mejerigaarden Holding A/S and Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action;

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the defendant;

               3.

               The intervener is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case T-385/00: Action brought on 27 December 2000 by Jean-Paul Seiller against the European Investment Bank

text:
C 61/22               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.2.2001
—     order that interest at the annual rate of 8 % or any other         The applicant claims that the Court should:
      appropriate rate to be determined by the Court be paid
      on the amount payable as from the date of judgment;                —     rule that the European Investment Bank is required to
                                                                               reimburse to Mr Seiller the sum of LUF 4 779 652 in
—     order the European Community, as represented here                        respect of his pension rights;
      by the Council of the European Union, the European
      Parliament and the Commission of the European Com-
      munities, to bear the costs of the proceedings.                    —     rule that that sum is to bear compound interest from
                                                                               1 May 1993 at the annual rate fixed by the President of
                                                                               the European Investment Bank;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         —     order the European Investment Bank to pay all the costs.
The applicant in the present case is a small well-established
firm in the business of high quality printing on folding carton
packaging for products such as cosmetics and fragances. The              Pleas in law and main arguments
market in question is to a great extent focused on the United
States both in terms of logistics and market share.
                                                                         The applicant in the present case, having worked for the EIB,
                                                                         submitted his resignation in April 1993, requesting that he
The applicant states that, as a result of the retaliatory measures       should not have to work his notice period. Thereafter, the
taken by the United States, and allowed by The Dispute                   defendant and the applicant signed an agreement by which the
Settlement Body, because of the adoption by the European                 EIB was to pay to Mr Seiller a certain sum ‘in full and final
Community of a scheme for importation of bananas that is to              settlement, on a lump-sum basis, of all accounts due and in
be considered as contrary to the GATT and GATS, the United               satisfaction of all rights and claims, whether contractual or
States market has been entirely closed off, so that heavy                extra-contractual, which you have or may have against the
investments in capital adapted specifically to the needs of this         Bank or any other Community body as at today’s date’.
market have been rendered worthless. As a question of fact,
the sanctions in question have been applied to the applicant’s
products now for over 18 months, taking the form of 100 %                The applicant maintains that the consent expressed by him in
ad valorem duties.                                                       that agreement is vitiated by the fact that, at the time when it
                                                                         was signed, he did not have available to him all the information
                                                                         necessary in order for him to be fully apprised. Thus, the sum
The applicant submits that the Community’s maintenance in                paid to him did not include the amount corresponding to the
place of an unlawful banana regime has caused it serious                 reimbursement of his pension rights.
damage which the Community has a duty to make good under
Article 288(2) C. In support of this claim the applicant submits
that the damage being caused to it is the direct result of the           The applicant therefore seeks to challenge the sum expressed
Community’s unlawful failure to comply with its international            to be in full and final settlement under the agreement signed
obligations.                                                             in April 1993.
Action brought on 27 December 2000 by Jean-Paul Seiller
            against the European Investment Bank                         Action brought on 28 December 2000 by Margarida
                                                                                Gonçalves against the European Parliament
                        (Case T-385/00)
                                                                                (Case T-386/00)
                         (2001/C 61/41)
                                                                                (2001/C 61/42)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities           An action against the European Parliament was brought before
on 27 December 2000 by Jean-Paul Seiller, resident in                    the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Luxembourg, represented by Dominique Chouanier, of the                   28 December 2000 by Margarida Gonçalves, residing in
Paris Bar, and Lex Thielen, of the Luxembourg Bar.                       Brussels, represented by Louis Tinti, of the Luxembourg Bar.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de Cassation, Paris, by judgment of that court of 28 January 1997 in the case of La Réunion Européenne and Others v. Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor and Others (Case C-51/97)

text:
22 . 3 . 97               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 94/13
       ( a ) each group is picked up at one point of departure             2 . Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the finding
             and set down at one point of destination                            that Geas itself chose, at the time, to carry out that
             ( including, on occasions, a visit to a tourist                     maintenance using a geyser team specially set up for
             attraction as part of that journey);                                that purpose ?
       ( b ) the same or similar journey is repeated on a                  3 . Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the finding
             number of occasions pursuant to a block                             that the fitters in Geas' geyser team also carried out
             reservation made by a tour operator;                                work on other appliances apart from those belonging
                                                                                to Gavema, occupying in the fitters' estimation 25 %
       (c ) the precise route to be taken is not predetermined;                   of their working time and in that of Gavema 40 % ?
       is a 'special regular service' within the meaning of that           4 . Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the finding
       Article ?                                                                  that maintenance works on bathroom geysers
                                                                                belonging to Gavema were also carried out by central
3 . If the answer to Question 2 is yes, is Article 4 ( 3 ) of                     heating fitters employed by Geas ?
       Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3820/85 (2 ) to be
       construed so that the distance of 'the route covered by             ( 1 ) OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .
       the service in question' is to be calculated by reference
       to :
       ( a ) each component part of the driver's journey during
             the day;
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de
       ( b ) the aggregate of such component parts.                        Cassation, Paris, by judgment of that court of 28 January
                                                                           1997 in the case of La Reunion Europeenne and Others v.
4. If the answer to Question 2 is no, is Article 2 ( 3 ) of                             Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor and Others
       Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 to be construed                                               ( Case C-51/97)
       so that the carriage of such passengers in such                                                    ( 97/C 94/27)
       circumstances is an ' occasional service ' within the
       meaning of that Article ?
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(') Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on                 European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de Cas
      common rules for the international carriage of passengers by         sation ( Court of Cassation ), Paris, of 28 January 1997,
      coach and bus ( OJ No L 74, 20 . 3 . 1992 , p. 1 ).                  which was received at the Court Registry on 7 February
( 2 ) Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985            1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of La Reunion
      on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to       Europeenne and Others v. Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor
      road transport ( OJ No L 370, 31 . 12 . 1985 , p. 1 ).               and Others, on the following questions :
                                                                           1 . ( a ) Is an action by which the consignee of goods
                                                                                found to be damaged on completion of a transport
                                                                                operation by sea and then by land, or by which its
                                                                                insurer who has been subrogated to its rights after
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                             compensating it, seeks redress for the damage
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Almelo, by judgment of that                                 suffered, relying on the bill of lading covering the
court of 5 February 1997 in the case of Jan Blauw and                                   maritime transport, not against the person who
                         Others v. Gavema BY                                            issued that document on his headed paper but
                            ( Case C-50/97)                                             against the person whom the plaintiff considered
                                                                                to be the actual maritime carrier, based on the
                              ( 97/C 94/26 )                                            contract of transport and does it, for that or any
                                                                                other reason, fall within the scope of matters
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                                         relating to contract within the meaning of Article 5
of the European Communities by judgment of the                                          ( 1 ) of the Convention ?
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Almelo ( District Court,
                                                                                ( b ) If the foregoing question is answered in the
Almelo) of 5 February 1997, which was received at the                                   negative, is the matter one relating to tort, delict
Court Registry on 7 February 1997, for a preliminary                                    or quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5 ( 3 )
ruling in the case of Jan Blauw and Others v. Gavema BV                                 of the Convention or is it appropriate to have
on the following questions:                                                             recourse to the principle laid down in Article 2 of
                                                                                the Convention that the courts of the State in
1 . In the light of the finding that Gavema has terminated                              whose territory the defendant is domiciled have
       the maintenance contract with Geas in respect of the                             jurisdiction ?
       geysers leased out by it, and has itself taken over the
       maintenance work relating to those geysers, can that                       (c ) In the event that the matter is to be regarded as
       be said, in principle, to constitute a transfer of part of                       one relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, may the
       an undertaking within the meaning of Directive 77/                               place where the consignee, after completion of the
        187/EEC ( M ?                                                                   maritime transport operation and then the final
 ---pagebreak--- No C 94/14              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               22 . 3 . 97
         overland transport operation, merely discovered              removal from the register of Case C-2 11/96 : Commission
         that the goods delivered to him were damaged,                of the European Communities y. Hellenic Republic.
         constitute — and if so under what conditions —
         the place of occurrence of the damage which,                 (<) OJ No C 269, 14. 9 . 1996 .
         according to the judgment of the Court of Justice
         of 30 November 1976 in Case 21 /76 Bier v. Mines
         de Potasse d'Alsace [ 1976] ECR, p. 1735 , may be
         the place ' of the event giving rise to the damage'
         within the meaning of Article 5 ( 3 ) of the
         Convention ?                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-226/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/31 )
2 . May a defendant domiciled in the territory of a
     Contracting State be brought, in another Contracting             By order of 4 December 1996 the President of the Court
     State, before the court hearing an action against a co          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
     defendant not domiciled in the territory of any                  removal from the register of Case C-226/96 : Commission
     Contracting State, on the ground that the dispute is             of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
     indivisible, rather than merely displaying a
    connection ?                                                      O OJ No C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-94/96 (')                        Removal from the register of Case C-227/96 (')
                            ( 97/C 94/28 )                                                        ( 97/C 94/32 )
                                                                      By order of 3 December 1996 the President of the Court
By order of 5 December 1996 the President of the Court                of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                removal from the register of Case C-227/96 : Commission
removal from the register of Case C-94/96 : Commission of             of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
                                                                      n OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
(') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-241/96 ( ')
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C- 109/96,                                              ( 97/C 94/33 )
            C-110/96, C-lll/96 and C-112/96 (')
                              97/C 94/29 )                            By order of 6 December 1996 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
By order of 10 December 1996 the President of the Court               removal from the register of Case C-241 /96 : Commission
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
removal from the register of Joined Cases C-109, C-110,
C-lll and C-112/96 : Commission of the European                       (') OJ No C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .
Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
H OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-244/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/34 )
       Removal from the register of Case C-2 11/96 (')                By order of 13 December 1996 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                            ( 97/C 94/30)                             removal from the register of Case C-244/96 : Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
By order of 5 December 1996 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                (') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .


C 387/26             lEN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20 . 12 . 97
Instance of the European Communities on 28 October                 The applicant also maintains that the contested decisions
1997 by Antonio Giannini, residing in Brussels,                    disregard the principle of the protection of legitimate
represented by Marc Dallemagne and Carlo Locchi, of the            expectations and are vitiated by a misuse of powers.
Brussels Bar, 85 Rue du Prince Royal .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul :
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case T-396/94 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 387/48 )
     — the defendant's decision annulling notice COM/
         151/94,                                                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
     — notice COM/062/97,                                          By order of 3 November 1997 the President of the First
                                                                   Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
     — the defendant's decision No 4732 of 24 July 1997            removal from the register of Case T-396/94 : Centrale
         rejecting the complaint, which was notified to the        Bewerkingseenheid ( CBE) v. Commission of the European
         applicant on 30 July 1997,                                Communities .
                                                                   (') OJ C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
— order the defendant to :
     — pay the applicant the difference between his salary
         and the salary improperly paid to the candidate
         appointed to the post in issue, by way of
         compensation for the non-material damage                          Removal from the register of Case T-23/97 (')
         suffered by him since the unlawful appointment of                                        97/C 387/49 )
         the latter,
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
     — pay the applicant the difference between his
         current salary and the salary which he would have
         received in grade A3 since 28 April 1995 , by way         By order of 3 November 1997 the President of the Second
         of compensation for the material damage suffered           Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
         by him,                                                   Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                    removal from the register of Case T-23/97: AEVP —
                                                                    Associa^ao das Empresas de Vinho do Porto v.
      — pay all of the costs.                                       Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                    (') OJ C 131 , 26 . 4 . 1997.
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 The applicant contests the decisions taken by the
 defendant, in consequence of the judgment delivered by
 the Court of First Instance on 19 March 1997 in Case
 T-21/96 Giannini v. Commission, to annul vacancy notice                    Removal from the register of Case T-87/97 (')
 COM/151 /94, issued with a view to filling the post of                                          ( 97/C 387/50 )
 Head of Unit DG I/D/ l 'Negotiation and management of
 textile agreements; footwear and other industries', and to
 publish a new vacancy notice COM/062/97 in relation to                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
 the same post.
                                                                     By order of 3 November 1997 the President of the First
                                                                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
 Fie considers that the arguments advanced by the                    Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
 defendant to justify the formulation of a fresh notice              Case T-87/97: Gustaaf van Dyck v. Commission of the
 corresponding to the same post are incorrect, and asserts           European Communities.
 that to seek to remove the defects which vitiated the
  notice annulled by the Court by adopting an act which,
                                                                     (') OJ C 166 , 31 . 5 . 1997.
  although in a new form, is vitiated by the same defects,
  amounts to an attempt to circumvent the spirit of the
  Court's judgment .


title: Judgment of the Court of 12 September 2000 in Case C-359/97: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure to fulfil obligations — Article 4(5) of the Sixth VAT Directive — Access to roads on payment of a toll — Failure to levy VAT — Regulations (EEC, Euratom) Nos 1552/89 and 1553/89 — Own resources accruing from VAT)

text:
4.11.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 316/9
1.   Declares that by failing to charge value added tax on motorway         resources and interest for late payment as a consequence of
     tolls collected as consideration for the service supplied to users,    that infringement, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
     where that service is not provided by a body governed by public        under the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
     law within the meaning of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Council            Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),
     Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation               L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kap-
     of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —          teyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm,
     Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-             V. Skouris and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
     ment, and by failing to make available to the Commission of            D. Louterman-Hubeau and H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
     the European Communities as own resources accruing from                trators, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 Septemb-
     value added tax the amounts corresponding to the value added           er 2000, in which it:
     tax which should have been levied on those tolls together with
     interest for late payment, the French Republic has failed to fulfil    1.    Declares that by failing to subject to value added tax tolls
     its obligations under Articles 2 and 4 of that directive and                 collected for the use of toll roads and toll bridges as consideration
     under Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89 of                        for the service supplied to users, when that service is not provided
     29 May 1989 on the definitive uniform arrangements for the                   by a body governed by public law within the meaning of
     collection of own resources accruing from value added tax and                Article 4(5) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
     Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May                       17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
     1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the                        States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
     system of the Communities’ own resources;                                    added tax: uniform basis of assessment, and by failing to make
                                                                                available to the Commission of the European Communities as
2.   Orders the French Republic to bear the costs.                                own resources accruing from value added tax the amounts
                                                                                corresponding to the tax which should have been levied on those
                                                                                tolls together with interest for late payment, Ireland has failed
(1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
                                                                                to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 4 of that directive
                                                                                and under Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89
                                                                                of 29 May 1989 on the definitive uniform arrangements for
                                                                                the collection of own resources accruing from value added tax
                                                                                and Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of
                                                                                29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom
                                                                                on the system of the Communities’ own resources.
                                                                            2.    Orders Ireland to bear the costs.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            (1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.
                       of 12 September 2000
in Case C-358/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                           ties v Ireland (1)
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Article 4(5) of the Sixth VAT                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Directive — Access to roads on payment of a toll — Failure to
levy VAT — Regulations (EEC, Euratom) Nos 1552/89 and
       1553/89 — Own resources accruing from VAT)                                                   of 12 September 2000
                          (2000/C 316/16)                                   in Case C-359/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland (1)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            (Failure to fulfil obligations — Article 4(5) of the Sixth VAT
                                                                            Directive — Access to roads on payment of a toll — Failure to
In Case C-358/97: Commission of the European Communities                    levy VAT — Regulations (EEC, Euratom) Nos 1552/89 and
(Agents: H. Michard and B. Doherty) v Ireland (Agent: M.A.                         1553/89 — Own resources accruing from VAT)
Buckley, assisted by D. Sherlock, T. McCann and D. Moloney)
— application for a declaration that by not subjecting tolls for                                        (2000/C 316/17)
the use of toll roads and toll bridges in Ireland to value added
tax, contrary to Articles 2 and 4(1), (2) and (5) of the
Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), and by failing to                In Case C-359/97: Commission of the European Communities
make available to the Commission the amounts of own                         (Agents: H. Michard and B. Doherty) v United Kingdom of
 ---pagebreak--- C 316/10                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.11.2000
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: J.E. Collins, assisted                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
by G. Barling QC and D. Anderson) — application for a
declaration that by not subjecting tolls for the use of toll roads
and toll bridges in the United Kingdom to value added tax,                                           of 12 September 2000
contrary to Articles 2 and 4(1), (2) and (5) of the Sixth Council
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                  in Case C-408/97: Commission of the European Communi-
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-                                  ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), and by failing to make available
to the Commission the relevant amounts of own resources
with interest for late payment as a consequence of that
                                                                               (Failure to fulfil obligations — Article 4(5) of the Sixth VAT
infringement, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of:                      Directive — Access to roads on payment of a toll — Failure
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida                                              to levy VAT)
(Rapporteur), L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),
P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragne-
malm, V. Skouris and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate                                               (2000/C 316/18)
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau and H.A. Rühl, Principal
Administrators, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
12 September 2000, in which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
1.    Declares that by failing to subject to value added tax tolls
      collected for the use of toll roads and toll bridges as consideration    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      for the service supplied to users, where that service is not                                in the European Court Reports)
      provided by a body governed by public law within the meaning
      of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
      17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member               In Case C-408/97: Commission of the European Communities
      States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value               (Agents: initially, H. Michard and B.J. Drijber, and sub-
      added tax: uniform basis of assessment, and by failing to make           sequently, H. Michard and H. van Vliet) v Kingdom of the
      available to the Commission of the European Communities as               Netherlands (Agents: C. Wissels and M.A. Fierstra) — appli-
      own resources accruing from value added tax the amounts                  cation for a declaration that, by failing to subject to value
      corresponding to the tax which should have been levied on those          added tax tolls collected for the use of roads as consideration
      tolls together with interest for late payment, the United                for the service supplied to users, contrary to Articles 2 and 4
      Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to              of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977
      fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 4 of that directive and      on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
      under Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89 of                    to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
      29 May 1989 on the definitive uniform arrangements for the               uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the
      collection of own resources accruing from value added tax and            Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations
      Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May                   under the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
      1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the                    Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),
      system of the Communities’ own resources;                                L. Sevón and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kap-
                                                                               teyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm,
                                                                               V. Skouris and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
                                                                               D. Louterman-Hubeau and H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
                                                                               trators, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 Septemb-
2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                               er 2000, in which it:
      Ireland to bear the costs.
                                                                               1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                               2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear
(1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.                                                          the costs.
                                                                               (1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.


title: Case C-557/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Kone AG, Otis GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG (Article 101 TFEU — Damages for the loss caused by a cartel prohibited by that article — Loss resulting from the higher price charged by an undertaking as a result of a prohibited cartel to which it is not a party ( ‘Umbrella pricing’ ) — Causal link)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Kone AG, Otis GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG
   (Case C-557/12) (1)

   ((Article 101 TFEU - Damages for the loss caused by a cartel prohibited by that article - Loss resulting from the higher price charged by an undertaking as a result of a prohibited cartel to which it is not a party (‘Umbrella pricing’) - Causal link))
   2014/C 253/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Kone AG, Otis GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH

      Defendant: ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 101 TFEU — Damages for the loss caused by a cartel prohibited by that article — Loss resulting from the higher price charged by an undertaking as a result of a prohibited cartel to which it is not a party

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 101 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the interpretation and application of domestic legislation enacted by a Member State which categorically excludes, for legal reasons, any civil liability of undertakings belonging to a cartel for loss resulting from the fact that an undertaking not party to the cartel, having regard to the practices of the cartel, set its prices higher than would otherwise have been expected under competitive conditions.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.


title: Case C-19/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court, Dublin, by order of that court of 30 July 1999, in the case of SIAC Construction Ltd against The County Council of the County of Mayo

text:
8.4.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 102/11
(b) What relevance does it have that the leftover stone is the         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court,
    same as regards its composition as the basic rock from             Dublin, by order of that court of 30 July 1999, in the case
    which it has been quarried, and that it does not change its        of SIAC Construction Ltd against The County Council of
    composition regardless of how long it is kept or how it is                               the County of Mayo
    kept?
(c) What relevance does it have that the leftover stone is
    harmless to human health and the environment? To what
    extent generally is importance to be attached to its possible                               (Case C-19/00)
    effect on health and the environment in assessing whether
    it is waste?
(d) What relevance does it have that the intention is to transfer                              (2000/C 102/18)
    the leftover stone in whole or in part away from the
    storage site for recovery, for example for landfill or
    breakwaters, and that it could be used as such without
    processing or similar measures? To what extent in this
    connection should attention be paid to how definite plans          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    the holder of the leftover stone has for such recovery and         European Communities by an order of the Supreme Court,
    to how soon after the leftover stone has been deposited on         Dublin, of 30 July 1999, which was received at the Court
    the storage site the recovery takes place?                         Registry on 24 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                       case of SIAC Construction Ltd against The County Council of
                                                                       the County of Mayo, on the following question:
(1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
                                                                       In a situation where an authority is awarding a contract
                                                                       pursuant to the provisions of the second indent of Article 29.1
                                                                       of Council Directive (71/305/EEC) (1), Chapter 2 of 26 July
                                                                       1971 as applied in the national law of a Member State, and
                                                                       where the authority shall have specified the ‘Award criteria
                                                                       (other than price)’ as being that the contract would be awarded
                                                                       to ‘the competent contractor submitting a tender which is
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Collège                    adjudged to be the most advantageous to the’ (awarding
juridictionnel de la région de Bruxelles-Capitale (judicial            authority) ‘in respect of cost and technical merit’ and where
board of the Brussels-Capital region) by order of that                 the three lowest tenders shall have been contractors of accepted
court of 9 December 1999 in the case of François                       competence and shall have submitted valid tenders of accepted
De Coster v Collège des Bourgmestre et Echevins de                     technical merit, and where the tender prices of the three lowest
                      Watermael-Boitsfort                              tenderers shall not have diverged greatly, is the awarding
                                                                       authority obliged to award the contract to the contractor who
                         (Case C-17/00)                                shall have tendered the lowest price or is the awarding
                                                                       authority entitled to award the contract to the contractor with
                                                                       the second lowest price on the basis of the professional report
                        (2000/C 102/17)                                of its consulting engineer that the ultimate cost of the contract
                                                                       to the awarding authority is likely to be less if the contract is
                                                                       awarded to the contractor who tendered the second lowest
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 price than it would be if the contract were awarded to the
European Communities by an order of the Collège juridiction-           contractor who tendered the lowest price?
nel de la région de Bruxelles-Capitale of 9 December 1999,
which was received at the Court Registry on 19 January 2000,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of François De Coster v
Collège des Bourgmestre et Echevins de Watermael-Boitsfort
on the following question:
                                                                       (1) Concerning the co-ordination of procedures for the award of
                                                                           public works contracts (OJ L 185 of 16.8.1971, p. 5) (SE SER1
‘Are Articles 1 to 3 of the tax regulation on satellite dishes             71(II) p. 682).
adopted in a vote by the municipal council of Watermael-Boits-
fort sitting in public on 24 June 1997 introducing a tax on
satellite dishes compatible with Articles 59 to 66 of the Treaty
establishing the European Community of 25 March 1957?’


title: Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Martine Frix against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-90/97)

text:
No C 166/24            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    31 . 5 . 97
    applicant, upon his appointment, of the implications              The applicant claims that the Court should:
    of Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations, the
    Commission breached the abovementioned principles.                — annul the Commission 's decision of 18 June 1996
                                                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                            consideration to the possible application of Article 31
                                                                             ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                      — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Henri Jacobs against
                                                                            adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                         ( Case T-88/97)
                           ( 97/C 166/48                              — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997                  Case T- 16/97 ( M.
by Henri Jacobs, residing at Steenokkerzeel ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an           O OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Martine Frix against
— annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996                                the Commission of the European Communities
    rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                                ( Case T-90/97)
    consideration to the possible application of Article 31
    (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                                                  ( 97/C 166/50)
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                                      (Language of the case: French)
    adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
    expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                          Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
                                                                      by Martine Frix, residing at Rosieres ( Belgium ),
                                                                      represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                                                                      Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T- 16/9 7 ( M.                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
H OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                      — annul the Commission's decision of 18 July 1996
                                                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                            consideration to the possible application of Article 31
                                                                             (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Mikael Barfod against               — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
       the Commission of the European Communities                            adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
                         ( Case T-89/97 )                                   expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                             97/C 166/49 )
                                                                      — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997                  Case T-l 6/97 (>).
by Mikael Barfod, residing at Rhode-Saint-Genese
(Belgium ), represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels            t 1 ) OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.


6.9.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                      C 213/43
        Removal from the register of Case T-52/98 (1)                    European Communities ordered the removal from the register
                                                                         of Case T-292/99: Bouw- en Handelsonderneming J. Peeters
                                                                         B.V. v Commission of the European Communities.
                        (2003/C 213/83)
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)                         (1 ) OJ C 63 of 04.03.2000.
By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-52/98:
De Nederlands Antillen v Commission of the European
Communities.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-295/99 (1)
( 1) OJ C 151 of 16.05.1998.
                                                                                (2003/C 213/86)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                         By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Second Chamber
        Removal from the register of Case T-53/98 (1)                    (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities ordered the removal from the register
                        (2003/C 213/84)                                  of Case T-295/99: Diesel Oil Company B.V. v Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities.
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 63 of 04.03.2000.
By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-53/98:
De Nederlands Antillen v Commission of the European
Communities.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-303/99 (1)
( 1) OJ C 166 of 30.05.1998.
                                                                                (2003/C 213/87)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
        Removal from the register of Case T-292/99 (1)
                                                                         By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Second Chamber
                                                                         (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
                        (2003/C 213/85)                                  European Communities ordered the removal from the register
                                                                         of Case T-303/99: Hoogendijk ATW B.V. v Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities.
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 63 of 04.03.2000.
By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Second Chamber
(Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case T-315/10: Order of the General Court of 20 January 2012 — Groupe Partouche v Commission (Action for annulment — Concentrations — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market — Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Inadmissibility)

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/18

         Order of the General Court of 20 January 2012 — Groupe Partouche v Commission
   (Case T-315/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Concentrations - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market - Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 80/31
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Groupe Partouche (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-J. Sebag, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and N. von Lingen, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: La Française des Jeux (Boulogne-Billancourt, France); and Groupe Lucien Barrière (Paris, France) (represented by: D. Théophile and P. Mèle, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 3333 of 21 May 2010 declaring the concentration operation for the acquisition by La Française des Jeux and Groupe Lucien Barrière of joint control over the undertaking Newco (Case COMP/M.5786 — Française des Jeux/Groupe Lucien Barrière/JV) to be compatible with the internal market and the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Groupe Partouche shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, La Française des Jeux and Groupe Lucien Barrière.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.


title: Case C-337/99: Action brought on 10 September 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
30.10.1999             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 314/5
4. The Commission’s decision determines the element of aid             Action brought on 10 September 1999 by the Com-
     by applying the Community reference rate prevailing at            mission of the European Communities against the
     the date on which the grants of aid were disbursed. The                                 Kingdom of Belgium
     rate indicated by the Commission corresponds to that
     specified for the repayment of illegal aid in Communi-                                     (Case C-337/99)
     cation 97/C/273/03 from the Commission to the Member
     States.
                                                                                (1999/C 314/10)
     That rate cannot be applied retroactively to the period
     which elapsed between the point in time at which the aid          An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
     was granted and the entry into force of the above                 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     mentioned rules, since it is contrary to the principle of         10 September 1999 by the Commission of the European
     legal certainty and the principle of the protection of            Communities, represented by Barry Doherty, of its Legal
     legitimate expectations.                                          Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
                                                                       Centre, Kirchberg.
(1) OJ L 236 of 7.9.1999, p. 14.
(2) OJ L 177 of 1.7.1981, p. 31.
(3) OJ L 126 of 9.5.1989, p. 1.                                        The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should:
                                                                       1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                           administrative measures necessary in order to comply with
                                                                           Article 4a(4) of Directive 90/388/EEC as amended by
                                                                           Directive 96/19/EC (1), alternatively by failing to communi-
Action brought on 7 September 1999 by the Commission                       cate the same to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium
of the European Communities against the French Republic                    has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and
                                                                           under the Treaty establishing the European Community;
                         (Case C-331/99)
                                                                       2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                         (1999/C 314/09)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 September            Article 249 EC (formerly Article 189 of the EC Treaty),
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities;                    according to which a directive is to be binding, as to the result
represented by Hans Støvlbaek, of its Legal Service, and Olivier       to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is
Couvert-Castéra, a national civil servant on secondment to the         addressed, requires Member States to observe the time-limits
Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in        laid down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner           in the present case expired on 11 January 1997 without the
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                     Kingdom of Belgium having brought into force the necessary
                                                                       provisions in order to comply with the directive referred to in
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            the Commission’s application.
— Declare that, by adopting and keeping in force of
     Article 1(f) of Decree No 77-469 of 28 April 1977, the            (1) OJ L 74 of 22.3.1996, p. 13.
     French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     Article 6(3) of Directive 76/768/EEC (1);
— Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       Action brought on 10 September 1999 by the Com-
The list of items of information laid down in Article 6(1) of          mission of the European Communities against the
Directive 76/768/EEC is exhaustive, and therefore the Directive                              Kingdom of Belgium
does not permit national rules requiring information to be
given on the quality and quantity of the substances mentioned                                   (Case C-338/99)
on the packaging, in advertising or in the name of the cosmetic
products covered by the Directive.                                                              (1999/C 314/11)
(1) Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approxi-       An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
    mation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    products (OJ L 262 of 27 September 1976, p. 169), as amended,      10 September 1999 by the Commission of the European
    with regard to Article 6, by Council Directive 88/667/EEC of       Communities, represented by Léna Ström, Legal Adviser, and
    21 December 1988 (OJ L 382 of 31 December 1988, p. 46).
                                                                       Olivier Couvert-Castéra, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,
                                                                       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                       Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 14 May 1996 in Case C-301/94: Air Inter v. Commission of the European Communities (Actions brought before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance for annulment of the same measure - Jurisdiction declined by the Court of First Instance - Discontinuance of the action brought before the Court of Justice - Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to determine the action brought by an individual - Referred to the Court of First Instance)

text:
 10 . 8 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 233/ 1
                                                                   I
                                                            (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
                   ORDER OF THE COURT                                 Chambers, G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
                        of 14 May 1996                                Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C.
                                                                      Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, FI . Ragnemalm, L. Sevón
in Case C-301 /94: Air Inter v. Commission of the European            and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; R.
                        Communities ( 1 )                             Grass, Registrar, made an order on 14 May 1996 , the
(Actions brought before the Court ofJustice and the Court             operative part of which is as follows :
of First Instance for annulment of the same measure —
Jurisdiction declined by the Court of First Instance —
Discontinuance of the action brought before the Court of              1 . Case C-301 /94 is referred to the Court of First
                                                                          Instance:
Justice — Jurisdiction of the Court ofJustice to determine
the action brought by an individual — Referred to the Court
                        of First Instance)                            2.  the costs are reserved.
                          ( 96/C 233/01 )
                                                                      0 ) OJ No C 370 , 24 . 12 . 1994 .
                 (Language of tbe case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          Action brought on 3 May 1996 by the Portuguese Republic
           published in the European Court Reports)                             against Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( Case C- 1 49/96 )
                                                                                96/C 233/02 )
In Case C-301 /94 : Air Inter, a public limited company
governed by French law, whose seat is at Paray Vieille Poste,         An action against the Council of the European Union was
represented by Jean-Pierre Spitzer, of the Paris Bar, with an         brought before the Court of Justice on 3 May 1996 by the
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                  Portuguese Republic , represented by Dr Luis Fernandes and
Aloyse May, 31 Grand Rue , against Commission of the                  Dr Carlos Botelho Moniz, acting as Agents, with an address
European Communities ( Agents : Rolf Wägenbaur and                    for service in Luxembourg at the Portuguese Embassy, 33
Lucio Gussetti ), supported by TAT European Airlines ,                Allée Scheffer .
whose seat is at Tours ( France ), represented by Antoine
Winckler, of the Paris Bar, and Romano Subiotto, Solicitor,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers             The applicant claims that the Court should:
of Elvinger & Hoss, 15 Côte d'Eich, and by the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agent:                — annul the Council Decision of 26 February 1996 i 1 )
John E. Collins , of the Treasury Solicitor's Department ) —              'concerning the conclusion of Memoranda of
application for annulment of Article 1 of Commission                      Understanding between the European Community and
Decision 94/29 1 /EC ( notified under reference C(94 ) 637                the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and between the
final ) on a procedure relating to the application of Council             European Community and the Republic of India on
Regulation ( EEC) No 2408/92 [Case VII/AMA/IV/93 —                        arrangements in the area of market access for textile
TAT — Paris ( Orly)-Marseille and Paris ( Orly)-Toulouse]                 products ',
( OJ 1994 L 127, p . 32 ) — the Court, composed of G. C.
Rodriguez Iglesias , President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.              — order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs
Edward , J. P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch, Presidents of                    in their entirety .