title: Case T-243/01: Action brought on 3 October 2001 by SONY Computer Entertainment Europe Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.1.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 3/35
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             of the OCT decision. Moreover, the Commission has failed to
                                                                        prove any causal link between those problems and the
                                                                        deterioration in a sector of the Community’s activity. The
(1) annul Regulation (EC) No 1476/2001;                                 applicant further claims that the importation of sugar and
                                                                        sugar/cocoa mixtures from the OCT has no impact on those
(2) declare that the Community is liable for the loss and               problems.
      damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the fact
      that, since 19 July 2001, imports of the products referred        In addition, the applicant pleads violation of the principle of
      to in Regulation No 1476/2001 have been prevented or              proportionality and infringement of Articles 3 and 182 to 184
      restricted on account of that regulation, and order that          of the EC Treaty. It claims that the contested regulation fails to
      the parties are to seek to reach agreement concerning the         take account of the preferential treatment afforded by those
      extent of the loss and damage suffered by the applicant           articles to the OCTs.
      and that, in the absence of agreement in that regard, the
      proceedings are to be resumed within a time-limit to be
      fixed by the Court in order for the extent of the loss and        Lastly, the applicant pleads misuse of powers on the part of
      damage to be determined; or, at any rate, order the               the Commission and a failure to provide a statement of reasons
      Community to pay the damages provisionally estimated              for the contested regulation.
      and yet to be assessed, alternatively order the Community
      to pay such amount of damages as the Court shall deem
      fair and equitable, together with interest at the annual          (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1476/2001 of 18 July 2001
      rate of 8 % from the date of the application to the date of           amending Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 as regards safeguard
      payment in full;                                                      measures with regard to imports from the overseas countries
                                                                            and territories of mixtures of sugar and cocoa with ACP/OCT
                                                                            originating status for the period 1 July to 1 December 2001 (OJ
(3) order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  L 195 of 19.7.2001, p. 29).
                                                                        (2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 of 29 June 2001
                                                                            providing for the continued application of safeguard measures
                                                                            with regard to imports of sugar sector products with EC/OCT
                                                                            originating status from the overseas countries and territories for
                                                                            the period 1 July to 1 December 2001 (OJ L 177 of 30.6.2001,
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                        p. 57).
The applicant produces, in Aruba, sugar and sugar/cocoa
mixtures. Aruba forms part of the association of overseas
countries and territories (OCTs). By virtue of the cumulation
of EC/OCT and ACP/OCT originating status, the sugar and
sugar/cocoa mixtures produced by the applicant have OCT                 Action brought on 3 October 2001 by SONY Computer
originating status and may be imported into the EC free from            Entertainment Europe Limited against the Commission of
levies.                                                                                the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-243/01)
However, by virtue of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1476/2001 of 18 July 2001 (1) amending Commission                                                (2002/C 3/61)
Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 of 29 June 2001 (2), a quota of
6 684 tonnes was introduced for mixtures of sugar and cocoa
with ACP/OCT originating status during the period from                                      (Language of the case: English)
19 July to 1 December 2001.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicant pleads, first, the illegality of Regulation               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
No 1325/2001, which it is contesting in separate proceedings            European Communities on 3 October 2001 by SONY Com-
(Case T-211/01).                                                        puter Entertainment Europe Limited, represented by Mr Phil-
                                                                        ippe de Baere of Van Bael & Bellis, Brussels (Belgium)
In support of its claim in the present proceedings, the applicant       The applicant claims that the Court should:
maintains that the contested regulation infringes Article 109 of
the OCT decision. According to the applicant, the Commission            —     annul Commission Regulation (EC) 1400/2001 (1) as
bases its findings concerning the adoption of the safeguard                   far as it classifies the PlayStation®2 under CN code
measures in question on incorrect facts. Thus, the serious                    9504 10 00 and the accompanying CD-ROM under CN
disturbances or difficulties in a sector of the economy of the                code 852 43 99 0;
Community cited by the Commission do not constitute serious
disturbances or difficulties within the meaning of Article 109          —     order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- C 3/36                    EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.1.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the Selection Board not to admit
The applicant, a company incorporated in the United Kingdom,                     him to Competition PE/90/A
is the only importer of the PlayStation®2 Computer Entertain-
ment System, models number SCPH-30003 and SCPH-30004.
The applicant was also the holder of Binding Tariff Information
GB 105 614 503 classifying the product under CN Code
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
8471 49 90, until it was revoked as a result of the adoption of
the contested Regulation.
                                                                           The applicant, who is a qualified Ingeniero Técnico (technical
                                                                           engineer) in Spain, applied for general competition PE/90/A,
The applicant submits that the contested act is not a true
                                                                           for the drawing up of a reserve list for the recruitment of
regulation but a decision addressed to it. No other product
                                                                           assistant administrators of Spanish mother tongue at Grade
than that imported by the applicant will precisely meet the
                                                                           A 8 (1). By letter of 27 June 2001, the chairperson of the
specifications in the contested decision.
                                                                           selection board informed him that he had not been admitted
                                                                           to the competition because he did not have sufficient know-
                                                                           ledge of two European Union languages and because he had
The applicant alleges that the PlayStation®2 should be classified          not completed a course of University studies evidenced by a
under Heading 8471. The product satisfies the four criteria as             degree. The applicant contests that decision and challenges the
defined by Notes 5(A) to Chapter 84 of the Common Customs                  lawfulness both of the competition notice and of the guide for
Tariff. By classifying the product under CN code 9504 10 00,               candidates taking part in interinstitutional competitions (2),
the contested act violates Council Regulation (EEC)                        inasmuch as the requirement is for possession of a Spanish
No. 2658/87 (2) and the wording of the Harmonised System                   honours degree (‘licenciado’), whereas a qualification which is
Explanatory Note (b) to Heading 9504. Furthermore, it incor-               equivalent to a three year degree, such as Ingenierı́a Técnica
rectly applies General Rule 3 (b) of the General rules for the             (technical engineering), is not accepted.
interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature by determining
the essential character solely on the basis of the functions of
the PlayStation®2 rather than on the basis of the materials or
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
components in which these functions must be inherent.
                                                                           relied upon in Case T-208/00 (3).
Finally, the contested Regulation violates Article 253 of the EC
Treaty.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2001 of 10 July 2001
    concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined
    Nomenclature (OJ L 189, p. 5).                                         (1) OJ 2000 C 162, p. 10.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the             (2) OJ 2000 C 162, p. 1.
    tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs          (3) OJ 2000 C 316, p. 26.
    Tariff (OJ L 256, p. 1).
                                                                           Action brought on 10 October 2001 by Dresdner Bank
Action brought on 9 October 2001 by Marc Boixader                            AG against Commission of the European Communities
               Rivas against European Parliament
                                                                                (Case T-250/01)
                            (Case T-249/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/63)
                             (2002/C 3/62)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the European Parliament was brought before               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                 European Communities on 10 October 2001 by Dresdner
9 October 2001 by Marc Boixader Rivas, residing in Fuenlabra-              Bank AG, whose registered office is at Frankfurt am Main,
da (Madrid), represented by Diego López Garrido, lawyer.                  represented by M. Hirsch and W. Bosch, lawyers.


title: Case T-298/08: Action brought on 31 July 2008 — Aldi v OHIM — Catalana de Telecomunicacions Societat Operadora de Xarxes (ALDI)

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/20

         Action brought on 31 July 2008 — Aldi v OHIM — Catalana de Telecomunicacions Societat Operadora de Xarxes (ALDI)
   (Case T-298/08)
   (2008/C 247/40)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks and C. Fürsen, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Catalana de Telecomunicacions Societat Operadora de Xarxes, SA (Barcelona, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 May 2008 (Case No R 1301/2007-1);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘ALDI’ for goods and services in Classes 35, 38, and 39 (application No 3 360 914).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Catalana de Telecomunicacions Societat Operadora de Xarxes, SA.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the Spanish word mark ‘ALPI’ for services in Class 38 (Mark No 2 262 920), the Spanish word mark ‘ALPI’ for services in Class 39 (Mark No 2 262 921) and the international word mark ‘ALPI’ for services in Classes 37, 38, 39 and 42 (Mark No 789 344), opposition being filed to registration for services in Class 38.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Plea in law: Infringement of Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks.

      (1)  Council Regulation No 40/94 0f 20 December 1991 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-41/15: Action brought on 23 January 2015 — Novartis v OHIM — Mabxience (HERTIXAN)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/32

      Action brought on 23 January 2015 — Novartis v OHIM — Mabxience (HERTIXAN)
      (Case T-41/15)
      (2015/C 107/42)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mabxience SA (Montevideo, Uruguay)

         Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

         Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘HERTIXAN’ — Application for registration No 10 660 835

         Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 October 2014 in Case R 2550/2013-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Plea(s) in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-393/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 4 August 2010 — Dermod Patrick O'Brien v Ministry of Justice (Formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs)

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 4 August 2010 — Dermod Patrick O'Brien v Ministry of Justice (Formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs)
   (Case C-393/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/25
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dermod Patrick O'Brien

      Defendant: Ministry of Justice (Formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it for national law to determine whether or not judges as a whole are ‘workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship’ within the meaning of clause 2.1 of the Framework Agreement, or is there a Community norm by which this matter must be determined?

               2.

               If judges as a whole are workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship within the meaning of clause 2.1 of the Framework Agreement, is it permissible for national law to discriminate (a) between full-time and part-time judges, or (b) between different kinds of part-time judges in the provision of pensions?


title: Case T-67/15: Action brought on 12 February 2015 — Polo Club v OHIM — Lifestyle Equities (POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/36

         Action brought on 12 February 2015 — Polo Club v OHIM — Lifestyle Equities (POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN)
   (Case T-67/15)
   (2015/C 118/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Polo Club (Gassin, France) (represented by: D. Masson, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lifestyle Equities CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN’ — Application for registration No 10 525 137

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2014 in Case R 1882/2013-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and register the trademark applied for in its entirety;

               —

               order OHIM to bear the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-60/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  18 October 2005  — Regione Siciliana v Commission (Action for annulment — Admissibility — Fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC — Natural or legal persons — Act of direct concern to them — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Commission's decision cancelling and requiring repayment of financial assistance — Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/18

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 October 2005 — Regione Siciliana v Commission
   (Case T-60/03) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Admissibility - Fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC - Natural or legal persons - Act of direct concern to them - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Commission's decision cancelling and requiring repayment of financial assistance - Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 - Manifest error of assessment)
   (2005/C 330/44)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Regione Siciliana (originally represented by G. Aiello, and subsequently by A. Cingolo, avvocati dello Stato)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. de March and L. Flynn, acting as Agents)
   Application for
   annulment of Commission decision C (2002) 4905 of 11 December 2002 relating to the cancellation of the aid granted to the Italian Republic by Commission Decision C (87) 2090 026 of 17 December 1987 concerning the provision of assistance by the European Regional Development Fund as infrastructure investment, for a sum no less than 15 million, in Italy (region: Sicily), and to the recovery of the advance on that assistance made by the Commission
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the objection of inadmissibility;

               2)

               Dismisses the action as unfounded;

               3)

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and half of the costs incurred by the Commission, and orders the Commission to bear half its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.


title: Case T-404/09: Action brought on 9 October 2009 — Deutsche Bahn v OHIM (Combination of the colours grey and red)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/31

         Action brought on 9 October 2009 — Deutsche Bahn v OHIM (Combination of the colours grey and red)
   (Case T-404/09)
   2009/C 297/47
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Bahn AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by U. Hildebrandt, K. Schmidt-Hern and B. Weichhaus, lawyers)

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

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 July 2009 (Case R 379/2009-1);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: A trade mark consisting of the combination of the colours grey and red for services in Class 39 (Application No 6 733 315)

      Decision of the Examiner: Application refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: In its assessment of the mark applied for, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market applied criteria which are inconsistent with the case-law of the Court of First Instance; it was, in particular, ignored that different criteria are applicable to the registration of colour marks for services than for goods.


title: Action brought on 23 October 1996 by 'A' against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-170/96)

text:
21 . 12 . 96          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 388 /9
Instance of the European Communities on 22 October                   Action brought on 23 October 1996 by 'A' against the
1996 by Jean-Pierre Pierard, residing in Brussels,                             Commission of the European Communities
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an                                  (Case T- 170/96 )
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                                   ( 96/C 388/ 18
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
— annul the decision of the Central Staff Committee
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
     rejecting the proposals made by Mr Chambellant for              Instance of the European Communities on 23 October
     appointments within the organs set up under the Staff           1996 by 'A', residing at Luxembourg, represented by
     Regulations and administrative bodies,                          Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the express                  Myson Sari, 30 Rue Cessange .
     decision adopted by the Commission rejecting the
     applicant's complaint,                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare that the 'Rules laying down the composition                — annul the appointing authority's implied decision
     and operation of the Staff Committee' and the                        rejecting the applicant's claim for damages of
     'Transitional arrangements for the representation of                  19 October 1995 and, in so far as necessary, annul the
     staff serving outside the Community' are illegal,                    appointing authority's decision of 9 July 1996 not to
     inasmuch as they do not confer local section status on               uphold the applicant's complaint in its entirety,
     representatives of staff serving outside the Community
     and provide for such staff to have only minimal                 — order the Commission to pay provisional damages in
     representation (3 members) on the Central Staff                      the sum of Bfrs 530 000 for the whole of the damage
     Committee ,                                                          suffered,
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                            — order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     The applicant maintains that she suffered material and
By letter of 11 April 1995 , the representative of staff             non-material damage as a result of, first, the decision of
serving outside the Community submitted a request to the             20 July 1995 whereby she was compulsorily transferred
Chairman of the Central Staff Committee on behalf of the             and, secondly, by the delay in drawing up her staff report
24 elected regional representatives concerning the                   for the period 1991 to 1993 .
appointment of a number of officials and other servants
within the various bodies. By letter of 11 October 1995 ,            The applicant points out that her compulsory transfer,
the Chairman of the Central Staff Committee replied that             which forms the subject-matter of an action for annulment
it was not possible to give a positive response to that              which is currently pending (*), is unlawful in various ways
request, in view of the fact that there was no local                 ( infringement of Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff
committee representing staff serving outside the Union. In           Regulations, infringement of Article 7 of the Staff
response to that decision, the applicant lodged a                    Regulations, breach of the duty to have regard for the
complaint which was subsequently expressly rejected.                 welfare of officials, misuse of powers, lack of a proper
                                                                     statement of reasons, infringement of Article 26 of the
In opposition to that decision, the applicant pleads                 Staff Regulations, breach of the right to be heard and
infringement of Article 9 of the Staff Regulations, since            breach of the principle of good management and sound
the specific interests of staff serving outside the                  administration) which constitute as many service-related
Community are not represented or taken into account by               faults committed by the defendant.
the   Staff Committee .    He    further  considers   that the
decision disregards Article 14 of the Rules laying down              The applicant maintains that in consequence of that
the composition and operation of the Staff Committee and             unlawful decision she has suffered non-material damage in
necessarily gives rise to discrimination by comparison with          three respects in that:
other officials who are represented within local sections.
                                                                     — the period within which the decision was both taken
The applicant maintains that the rejection of the request is              and put into effect was particularly short, which
totally contrary to Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff                    resulted in a hurried departure which necessarily
Regulations and, in particular, to the principle of direct                prejudiced her reputation and her honour,
representation for European officials. The applicant
additionally pleads that the Commission has completely               — the decision at issue seriously affected her physical and
failed to discharge its duty to have regard for the welfare               mental health,
and interests of officials and to provide protection and
assistance to staff serving outside the Community.                   — it involved a transfer to a post for which she had
                                                                          neither the experience nor a liking and which does not
 ---pagebreak--- No c 388/ 10           Len                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21 . 12 . 96
      at all correspond to the qualifications and competence              defendant observes that Article 6 of Annex V to the Staff
      acquired in her previous post.                                      Regulations uses in this regard the expression ' may' grant,
                                                                          and that consequently, in so far as that provision gives it a
She further considers that the decision in question caused                discretion, it does not confer any right on officials to
her material damage, first, because her chances of                        special leave in the event of a serious illness of a child. In
promotion are greatly reduced as a result of her transfer                 stating its reasons for refusing her application, the
and, secondly, because the aforementioned health                          Commission also refers to internal directives requiring the
problems entail an additional financial burden for her.                   applicant to submit medical certificates attesting to a
                                                                          serious illness .
The applicant concludes that the Commission's liability is
thereby established and that it must make good the                        The applicant argues in the first place that, apart from
damage caused.                                                            annual leave, which is an automatic entitlement, the Staff
                                                                          Regulations provide for special leave which must be
                                                                          granted in so far as the conditions for entitlement thereto
As regards the delay in drawing up her staff report for the               are fulfilled and the official applies for it. Accordingly, the
period 1991 to 1993 , the applicant observes that the draft               expressions ' may be granted ' or 'may grant' do not mean
report was not presented to her until 13 September 1995 ,                 that the institution has a discretion in the matter, but
and then only after she had formally required the                         simply declares that it has the legal capacity to grant such
appointing authority to fulfil its duties towards her. In                 leave .
consequence of that delay, it was not possible for her to be
taken into consideration by the Promotion Committee
when considering promotions from one career bracket to                    As far as the internal directives are concerned, the
another for 1994 and 1995 . The delay thus adversely                      applicant categorically denies that they may be relied upon
affected her legitimate expectations and rights in respect                against her. She is completely ignorant of those directives.
of promotions and the defendant should make good the                      What is more, the Commission has not provided her with
material damage arising therefrom.                                        any information which would enable her to identify them
                                                                          or refer to them . Accordingly, she does not know which
                                                                          authority adopted those directives or under what
f 1 ) Case T-78/96 , OJ No C 233 , 19 . 8 . 1996 , p. 12 .
                                                                          procedure they were issued. By the same token, she does
                                                                          not know what the legal force of those directives may be .
Action brought on 29 October 1996 by Teresa Maria
Rodrigues Gomes De Oliveira against the Commission of                     Action brought on 4 November 1996 by Cornelis Volger
                     the European Communities                                            against the European Parliament
                          ( Case T-173 /96 )
                                                                                Case T-l 76/96 )
                            ( 96/C 388/ 19 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 388/20 )
                  (Language of the case: French)                                            (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European                          An action against the European Parliament was brought
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         hefore the Court of First Instance of the European
Instance of the European Communities on 29 October                        Communities on 4 November 1996 by Cornelis Volger,
 1996 by Teresa Maria Rodrigues Gomes De Oliveira,                        resident at Heffingen ( Luxembourg ), represented by Jean
resident in Luxembourg, represented by Alain Lorang, of                   Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure And Ariane Tornel, of the
the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service at his                    Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Chambers, 51 Rue Albert l er.                                             Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the decision of the Commission,                                   — annul the decision of 1 December 1995 assigning the
                                                                               applicant to non-active status with effect from the
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                      evening of 30 November 1995 and all subsequent
                                                                               decisions relating thereto, in particular the decision no
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            longer to pay him the remuneration and the
                                                                               allowances to which he is entitled,
The applicant, an official of grade LA 6 , challenges the
appointing authority's refusal to grant her three days'                   — annul, in so far as necessary,              the decision of
special leave, corresponding to the period covered by three                    3 September 1996 fixing 1 February 1996 as the date
medical certificates relating to a serious illness of her two                  on which the aforementioned decision took effect,
children which stressed the need for the mother to remain
with them . In the decision refusing her request, the                     — order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-245/99: Action brought on 18 October 1999 by Sadam Castiglionese Spa against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.1.2000             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 20/25
— the contested decision threatens now, at a distance of                  Action brought on 19 October 1999 by Tirrenia di
    years, to undermine the balance achieved and to recreate              Navigazione SpA and Others against Commission of the
    the dangers previously pre-empted by the action taken by                                  European Communities
    the Italian authorities.
                                                                                (Case T-246/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/51)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 18 October 1999 by Sadam Casti-                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
glionese Spa against the Commission of the European                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on
                          Communities                                     19 October 1999 by Tirrenia di Navigazione SpA and Others,
                                                                          represented by Antonio Tizzano and Gian Michele Roberti, of
                                                                          the Naples Bar, and of 36 Place du Grand Sablon, Brussels.
                        (Case T-245/99)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
                         (2000/C 20/50)
                                                                          — annul the Commission decision of 6 August 1999;
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          — order the Commission to pay the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 October 1999 by Sadam Casti-                   Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
glionese Spa, represented by Antonio Tizzano and Gian
Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar, and Alberto Maffei Alberti,
Gualtiero Pittalis and Alessandra Franchi, of the Bologna Bar,            These proceedings seek annulment of the Commission decision
with an address for service in Brussels at 36 Place du Grand              of 6 August 1999 whereby the Commission initiated a pro-
Sablon.                                                                   cedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty regarding State aid
                                                                          allegedly granted by Italy to the applicant companies. The aid
                                                                          objected to in the contested decision is said to derive from
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               ‘agreements between undertaking in the Tirrenia Group and
                                                                          the Italian State’ and to consist essentially of the introduction
                                                                          of public service obligations (PSOs) subsidised on certain
— annul (wholly or in part) the Commission’s decision of                  routes and of related financial mechanisms.
    11 May 1999 concerning State aid granted by Italy to the
    sugar sector (C (1999) 1363 def.);
                                                                          The applicants, which are part of the Tirrenia Group, observe
                                                                          that, under the domestic Italian rules, they are subject to
— order the Commission of the European Communities to                     specific restrictions regarding the services to be provided
    pay the costs.
                                                                          and the procedures for providing them. In particular, those
                                                                          restrictions relate to three basic parameters: the routes to be
                                                                          followed, the frequencies/timetables for each route and the
                                                                          type of vessels to be used on individual routes.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          In support of their claims, the applicants submit that:
The applicant relies on the pleas in law and arguments put
forward in Case T-244/99 Sadam Abruzzo v Commission.
                                                                          — The basis of the PSOs at issue reflects a legitimate choice
                                                                              made by the Italian authorities, covered by Article 4(3)
                                                                              of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 applying the
                                                                              principle of freedom to provide services to maritime
                                                                              transport within Member States (maritime cabotage).


title: Case C-83/03: Action brought on 26 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
10.5.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 112/9
4.     If Question 2 is answered in the negative:                        Action brought on 26 February 2003 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
       Does the content of the reference for a preliminary ruling,
       together with the supporting documents, afford the
       Court, in the light of its judgment in Case C-392/93
                                                                                (Case C-83/03)
       British Telecommunications [1996] ( 2), sufficient infor-
       mation to answer the question of whether the
       implementing provisions described fall within the scope
       for discretion afforded to the national legislator under                                    (2003/C 112/17)
       Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1998
       relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
       prices of medicinal products for human use and their
       inclusion in the scope of national health insurance
       systems or does the Court leave it to the referring court
       to answer this question?                                          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 February
                                                                         2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
( 1) European Court Reports 2001 p. I-09285.                             represented by Antonio Aresu and Roberto Amorosi, acting as
( 2) European Court Reports 1996 p. I-01631.                             Agents.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         a)     find that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Article 4(2) of Council Directive 85/
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeits-                        337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the
gericht by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in the                        effects of certain public and private projects on the
case of Wolff & Müller GmbH & Co.KG against José Filipe                         environment in as much as it failed properly to determine
                           Pereira Félix                                        whether a project for the construction of a tourist port at
                                                                                Fassacesia (Chieti) — a project covered by Annex II to the
                                                                                directive — warranted the commencement of a procedure
                          (Case C-60/03)                                        to assess its impact on the environment, and
                         (2003/C 112/16)                                 b)     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
(Federal Labour Court) of 6 November 2002, received at the               Pleas in law and main arguments
Court Registry on 14 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Wolff & Müller GmbH & Co.KG against José
Filipe Pereira Félix on the following question:
                                                                         The Italian authorities have given the Commission no expla-
                                                                         nation of the reasons for which they took the view that there
Does Article 49 EC (formerly Article 59 of the EC Treaty)                was no need for an environmental impact assessment, in
preclude a national system whereby, when subcontracting the              accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337/EEC, to be
conduct of building work to another undertaking, a building              carried out in relation to a project for the construction of a
contractor becomes liable, in the same way as a guarantor who            tourist port in Fassacesia (Chieti).
has waived benefit of execution, for the obligation on that
undertaking or that undertaking’s subcontractors to pay the
minimum wage to a worker or to pay contributions to a
communal scheme for parties to a collective agreement where              It is therefore unclear whether the characteristics of the project
the minimum wage means the sum payable to the worker                     were considered with reference to its possible impact on fauna
after tax, social security contributions, payments towards the           and flora and on the landscape. The fact that the area in
promotion of employment or other such social insurance                   question has not been proposed as a Site of Community
payments have been deducted (net pay), if the safeguarding of            Importance is all the more reason why the project’s impact on
workers’ pay is not the primary objective of the legislation or          fauna and flora and on the landscape should have been taken
is merely a subsidiary objective?                                        into consideration. Moreover, the fact that this point was
                                                                         considered only after building permission had already been
                                                                         granted is further indication that the procedure followed was
                                                                         incoherent, to say the least.
 ---pagebreak--- C 112/10                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         10.5.2003
Despite the absence from the directive of guidelines and                 4.    If the answer is in the negative, may the courts of the
criteria for determining whether there is any need to conduct                  Member States extend the meaning of a commercial agent
an assessment of the environmental impact of a given project,                  to cover the foregoing person, by analogical application
Article 4(2) cannot be regarded as having been correctly                       of their national legislation which incorporated the
applied where there is no reasonable justification for a decision              directive into their domestic law, or is that impermissible
not to subject a project to that procedure.                                    because it runs counter to the uniformity of Community
                                                                               law?
( 1) OJ L 175 of 5.7.1985, p. 40.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ L 372 of 31.12.1986, p. 1.
                                                                         Action brought on 26 February 2003 by the Hellenic
                                                                         Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Polimeles
Protodikio Athinon by judgment of that Court of 27 April                                                munities
2001 in the case of Anastasia Mavrona kai Sia O.E. against
        Delta Etairia Simmetokhon Anonimos Etairia                                                   (Case C-86/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 112/19)
                          (Case C-85/03)
                         (2003/C 112/18)                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         Communities on 26 February 2003 by the Hellenic Republic,
                                                                         represented by Ekaterini Samoni-Radou and Panayiotis Milon-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   opoulos, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
European Communities by judgment of the Polimeles Protodi-               Luxembourg.
kio Athinon (Court of First Instance, Athens) of 27 April 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 26 February 2003, for a                The applicant claims that the Court should:
preliminary ruling in the case of Anastasia Mavrona kai Sia
O.E. against Delta Etairia Simmetokhon Anonimos Etairia on               1.    annul Commission Decision C(2002) 2575 final of
the following questions:                                                       17 December 2002 on a request by Greece for authoris-
                                                                               ation to use heavy fuel oils with a maximum sulphur
1.    Does the definition of a commercial agent in Article 1(2)                content of 3 % by mass in part of its territory; (1)
      of Council Directive 86/653/EEC (1) extend to a self-
      employed intermediary who purchases in his own name                2.    declare Directive 1999/32/EC inapplicable on the basis
      goods from the principal, deducting his commission from                  of Article 241 of the EC Treaty; and
      the purchase price, and subsequently sells those goods to
      third parties, but acting on behalf of the principal?              3.    order the Commission to pay the costs.
2.    If the answer is in the negative, in the present instance
      has the definition of commercial agent laid down by                Pleas in law and main arguments
      that article been laid down in contradistinction to the
      foregoing person (that is to say to a self-employed                —     Infringement of rights of defence;
      intermediary who purchases in his own name goods
      from the principal, deducting his commission from the
                                                                         —     Infringement of the principle of effectiveness (effet utile);
      purchase price, and subsequently sells those goods to
      third parties, but acting on behalf of the principal), or is
                                                                         —     Infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate
      there in fact a lacuna?
                                                                               expectations;
3.    If there is a lacuna, is it possible, on the basis of the          —     Infringement of the principle of proportionality;
      principles of equity, for the foregoing definition in
      Article 1(2) of the directive to be applied by analogy to a        —     Infringement of Article 252 EC.
      self-employed intermediary who purchases in his own
      name goods from the principal, deducting his com-
      mission from the purchase price, and subsequently sells            (1 ) OJ L 4, 9.1.2003, p. 16.
      those goods to third parties, but acting on behalf of the
      principal?


title: Case C-309/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 July 2007 — Firma Baumann GmbH v Land Hessen

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 July 2007 — Firma Baumann GmbH v Land Hessen
   (Case C-309/07)
   (2007/C 247/03)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Firma Baumann GmbH

      Defendant: Land Hessen
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is a national legislature, when availing itself of the power laid down in Article 5(3) of Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 in the version of Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 and in point 4(a) of Chapter I of Annex A thereto to increase the standard amounts of fees for individual establishments and in point 4(b) to collect a fee which covers actual costs, strictly bound by the fee structure laid down in points 1 and 2(a) of Chapter I of Annex A (according to type of animal, young or adult animals, carcase weight etc) or may it make a distinction, when setting the amounts of scales of fees, between inspections of slaughtering units in large establishments and other inspections and, in addition, also within those two groups adjust the rate of fees on a diminishing scale according to the number of animals slaughtered within the animal types, provided only that that reflects the actual costs?

               2.

               On the basis of the abovementioned provisions, may a national legislature collect, in respect of slaughtering carried out outside normal slaughtering hours at the request of the owner, an additional fee on a percentage basis on top of the fee collected for slaughtering inspections in normal slaughtering hours when the latter reflects the additional actual costs, or must those costs be contained in the standard (increased) fee for all persons subject to a fee?


title: Case C-386/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 13 August 2012 — Siegfried János Schneider

text:
               13.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 13 August 2012 — Siegfried János Schneider
   (Case C-386/12)
   2012/C 311/09
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Sofiyski gradski sad

      Party to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Siegfried János Schneider

      Question referred

   Is Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 applicable only to contentious proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property, or does the provision also apply to non-contentious proceedings in which nationals of a Member State who have been declared by a court of that State, in accordance with its national law, to be lacking full legal capacity and for whom a guardian has been appointed (who is also a national of that Member State), and who seek to dispose of immovable property belonging to them which is situated in another Member State?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sala de lo Social of the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla la Mancha by order of that court of 25 April 1996 in the case of Francisca Sánchez Hidalgo and Others against Asociación de Servicios Aser and Sociedad Cooperativa Minerva (Case C-173/96)

text:
6 . 7. 96          LEN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 197/ 15
Jersey of 11 April 1996 , which was received at the Court              2 . If there has been a supply of goods or services effected
Registry on 20 May 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the                   for   consideration,      what    is  the    nature    of the
case of Rui Alberto Pereira Roque against His Excellency the               consideration in relation to such transaction ?
Lieutenant Governor of Jersey, on the following
questions:                                                             P ) OJ No L 145, 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ; EE 09 FI , p . 54 .
1 . On the premise that British citizens are not liable to
     immigration control in, or to be deported from, Jersey,
     does Article 4 of the third Protocol to the Act of
     Accession of the United Kingdom to the European
     Communities ( l ) have the effect that nationals of
     another Member State are equally not liable to be                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sala de lo Social of
     deported from Jersey ?                                            the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla la Mancha by
                                                                       order of that court of 25 April 1996 in the case of Francisca
2 . If the answer to the first question is 'No', does the said         Sanchez Hidalgo and Others against Asociacion de Servicios
     Article 4 prohibit the competent authorities in Jersey                      Aser and Sociedad Cooperativa Minerva
     from deporting a national of another Member State save                                    ( Case C-1 73/96 )
     where such deportation is justified on grounds of public                                    ( 96/C 197/31 )
     policy, public security or public health ?
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
3 . If the answer to the second question is 'Yes', does the            European Communities by an order of the Sala de lo Social
     said Article 4 prohibit the competent authorities of              del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla la Mancha
     Jersey from deporting a national of another Member                ( Social Chamber of the High Court of Justice, Castilla la
     State from Jersey where the considerations of public              Mancha ), received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1996 ,
     policy applied by those authorities would not in practice         for a preliminary ruling in the case of Francisca Sanchez
     lead to the deportation of that person from the United            Hidalgo and Others against Asociacion de Servicios Aser
     Kingdom ?                                                         and Sociedad Cooperativa Minerva Ayuntamiento, on the
                                                                       following question:
0 ) OJ, English Special Edition, 27. 3 . 1972, p. 164.
                                                                       Must there be regarded as falling within the scope of
                                                                       Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 ( ! ) the case of an
                                                                       undertaking which ceases to provide, for a municipality
                                                                       which had awarded it a contract for that purpose, the service
                                                                       of home help for certain persons in need, whereupon a new
                                                                       contract for that service is awarded to a different
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                undertaking, without there being any transfer of material
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of             assets and without there being, either in the collective
 13 May 1996, in the case of the Commissioners of Customs              agreement or in the tendering conditions, any provision
   and Excise against the First National Bank of Chicago               pursuant to which the new undertaking must be subrogated
                        Case C- 1 72/96 )
                                                                       to the employment relationship between the workers and
                                                                       the previous undertaking to which the contract had been
                          96/C 197/30                                  awarded ?
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                (M OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 ; EE 05 F2 , p . 122 .
 European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 13 May 1996 , which
 was received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1996 , for a
 preliminary ruling in the case of the Commissioners of
 Customs and Excise against the First National Bank of
 Chicago, on the following questions :
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
                                                                        Première Instance de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of
 On the proper interpretation of Council Directive                      23 April 1996 in the case ofJyri Lehtonen and ASBL Castors
 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the                  Canada Dry Namur-Braine v. ASBL Fédération royale belge
 laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                                   des sociétés de basket-ball
 common system of value-added tax: uniform basis of                                             (Case C-1 76/96 )
 assessment ^), and in relation to transactions of foreign
 exchange as defined by the British Bankers' Association ( as                                     ( 96/C 197/32 )
 set out in paragraph 1 of the findings of fact):
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 1 . Do such foreign exchange transactions constitute                   European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
      the supply of goods or services effected for                      Première Instance de Bruxelles ( Court of First Instance,
      consideration ?                                                   Brussels ) of 23 April 1996 , which was received at the Court


title: Case T-208/02: Action brought on 3 July 2002 by Lene Beier against Europol

text:
24.8.2002             EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 202/37
Action brought on 29 June 2002 by Vassilios Tsarnavas                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the Selection Board to exclude
                        (Case T-200/02)                                          the applicant from the competition following the pre-
                                                                                selection tests, communicated by letter of 2 May 2002
                                                                                admin. A2/5000LM — IT 001451 signed by Herik
                        (2002/C 202/61)                                          Halskov;
                   (Language of the case: French)                          —     annul all other subsequent and consequent decisions
                                                                                which may be adopted by the Commission with regard
                                                                                to the applicant’s exclusion from the competition in
                                                                                question;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
European Communities on 29 June 2002 by Vassilios Tsarna-
vas, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           The applicant in the present action contests the decision of the
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 13 March 2002                Selection Board not to admit the applicant to the written tests
      rejecting in part the complaint lodged by the applicant              in general competition COM/A/10/01 Section 01/Law for
      under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations so far as               having failed to obtain sufficient marks to be included among
      concerns his claim for compensation;                                 the 400 best candidates.
—     accordingly, order the Commission to pay him                         The applicant points out in that regard that, according to
      EUR 12 500 by way of compensation for the non-                       the notice of the abovementioned competition, only those
      material damage suffered by him;                                     candidates obtaining the 400 best marks in the pre-selection
                                                                           tests were to be admitted to the competition.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           In support of his arguments, the applicants alleges:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            —     unlawfulness of the notice of competition as contrary to
                                                                                Articles 4 and 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations of
                                                                                the European Community.
The applicant claims that he suffered damage as a result of the
infringement by the Commission of the General Provisions                   —     breach of the principles of sound administration, accord-
implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations inasmuch as                     ing to which the Commission must admit to the tests
the delay in drawing up his staff report is attributable to the                  only those candidates capable of meeting the conditions
Commission.                                                                      for admission set out in the notice.
Action brought on 9 July 2002 by Nicoletta Falcone                         Action brought on 3 July 2002 by Lene Beier against
    against Commission of the European Communities                                                      Europol
                        (Case T-207/02)                                                             (Case T-208/02)
                        (2002/C 202/62)                                                            (2002/C 202/63)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                            (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 First Instance of the European Communities on 3 July 2002
European Communities on 9 July 2002 by Falcone Nicoletta,                  by Lene Beier, residing in The Hague (Netherlands), represented
represented by Massimo Condinanzi, lawyer.                                 by Maria Franciscus Baltussen and Pauline de Casparis, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- C 202/38               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.8.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) annul the tacit rejection by Europol of the applicant’s               (1) annul the tacit rejection by Europol of the applicant’s
      complaint against the decision of 23 November 2001,                       complaint against the decision of 23 November 2001,
      and at the same time annul the contested decision of                      and at the same time annul the contested decision of
      23 November 2001;                                                         23 November 2001;
(2) order Europol, primarily, to award the applicant two                  (2) order Europol to award the applicant two additional
      additional salary increments, effective from 1 July 2001;                 salary increments, effective from 1 July 2001;
      alternatively, order Europol to award the applicant one
      additional salary increment, effective from 1 July 2001;            (3) order Europol to pay to the applicant, within 48 hours
(3) order Europol to pay to the applicant, within 48 hours                      after delivery of the judgment to be given in this case,
      after delivery of the judgment to be given in this case,                  what is due to him thereunder, together with interest at
      what is due to her thereunder, together with interest at                  the statutory rate prescribed by Netherlands law;
      the statutory rate prescribed by Netherlands law;
                                                                          (4) order Europol to indemnify the applicant in respect of
(4) order Europol to pay to the applicant, within 48 hours                      the costs of the proceedings.
      after delivery of the judgment to be given in this case, the
      sum of 1 000 euros by way of compensation for the non-
      material damage suffered by her;
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
(5) order Europol to indemnify the applicant in respect of
      the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                          The applicant is employed at Europol. The contested decision
                                                                          adopted by the defendant did not award the applicant a salary
                                                                          increase to which he considers himself to be entitled.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant claims that the decision in question infringes
The applicant is employed at Europol. The contested decision
                                                                          Article 29 of the Europol Staff Regulations. According to the
adopted by the defendant did not award the applicant a salary
                                                                          applicant, the Management Board has failed to lay down the
increase to which she considers herself to be entitled.
                                                                          necessary rules for the award of salary increases in accordance
                                                                          with that article. The applicant further pleads that the Director
The applicant claims that the decision in question infringes              exceeded his discretionary powers, inasmuch as the decision-
Article 29 of the Europol Staff Regulations. According to the             making procedure does not satisfy the requirements of regard
applicant, the Management Board has failed to lay down the                for the welfare and interests of staff and of impartiality. Lastly,
necessary rules for the award of salary increases in accordance           the applicant pleads infringement of the principles of equal
with that article. The applicant further pleads that the Director         treatment and of the protection of legitimate expectations.
exceeded his discretionary powers, inasmuch as the decision-
making procedure does not satisfy the requirements of regard
for the welfare and interests of staff and of impartiality. Lastly,
the applicant pleads infringement of the principles of equal
treatment and of the protection of legitimate expectations.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-258/97 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 202/65)
Action brought on 5 July 2002 by Andreas Mausolf
                         against Europol                                                     (Language of the Case: Italian)
                         (Case T-209/02)
                         (2002/C 202/64)                                  By order of 12 June 2002 the President of the Fourth Chamber
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-258/97:
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                          Società Eridania SpA and Others v Council of the European
                                                                          Union.
An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities on 5 July 2002                 (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
by Andreas Mausolf, residing at Leiden (Netherlands), rep-
resented by Maria Franciscus Baltussen and Pauline de Casparis,
lawyers.


title: Case C-244/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Salzburger Flughafen GmbH v Umweltsenat (Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Articles 2(1) and 4(2) — Projects listed in Annex II — Extension works to the infrastructure of an airport — Examination on the basis of thresholds or criteria — Article 4(3) — Selection criteria — Annex III, point 2(g) — Densely populated areas)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Salzburger Flughafen GmbH v Umweltsenat
   (Case C-244/12) (1)

   (Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Directive 85/337/EEC - Articles 2(1) and 4(2) - Projects listed in Annex II - Extension works to the infrastructure of an airport - Examination on the basis of thresholds or criteria - Article 4(3) - Selection criteria - Annex III, point 2(g) - Densely populated areas)
   2013/C 156/23
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Salzburger Flughafen GmbH

      Defendant: Umweltsenat

      Intervener: Landesumweltanwaltschaft Salzburg, Bundesministerin für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) — Projects liable to an assessment — Extension of an airport — Member State's legislation providing for an environmental impact assessment of a project only if the annual number of flights increases by no less than 20 000.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 2(1) and 4(2)(b) and (3) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, preclude national legislation which makes projects which change the infrastructure of an airport and fall within the scope of Annex II to that directive subject to an environmental impact assessment only if those projects are likely to increase the number of aircraft movements by at least 20 000 per year;

               2.

               When a Member State, pursuant to Article 4(2)(b) of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, with regard to projects falling within the scope of Annex II thereto, establishes a threshold which is incompatible with the obligations laid down in Articles 2(1) and 4(3) of that directive, the provisions of Articles 2(1) and 4(2)(a) and (3) of the directive have direct effect, which means that the competent national authorities must ensure that it is first examined whether the projects concerned are likely to have significant effects on the environment and, if so, that an assessment of those effects is then undertaken.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.


title: Case C-442/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 October 2012 — Jan Sneller v DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 October 2012 — Jan Sneller v DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV
   (Case C-442/12)
   2013/C 9/49
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jan Sneller

      Defendant: DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 4(1) of Directive 87/344/EEC (1) allow a legal expenses insurer which stipulates in its policies that legal assistance in inquiries or proceedings will in principle be provided by employees of the insurer also to stipulate that the costs of legal assistance provided by a lawyer or legal representative chosen freely by the insured person will be covered only if the insurer takes the view that the handling of the case must be subcontracted to an external legal representative?

               2.

               Will the answer to Question 1 differ depending on whether or not legal assistance is compulsory in the inquiry or proceedings concerned?

      (1)  Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance (OJ 1987 L 185, p. 77).


title: Case C-182/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 9 April 2010 — Marie-Noëlle Solvay, Le Poumon vert de la Hulpe ASBL, Jacques Solvay de la Hulpe, Jean-Marie Solvay de la Hulpe, La Hulpe — Notre village ASBL, Alix Walsh, André Philips, Les amis de la Forêt de Soignes ASBL, Association des Riverains et Habitants des Communes Proches de l’Aéroport B.S.C.A. (Brussels South Charleroi Airport) ASBL, Grégoire Stassin, André Gilliard, Société Wallone des Aéroports SA (SOWAER), Paul Fastrez, Henriette Fastrez, Infrabel SA, Jean-Pierre Olivier, Pierre Deneye, Paul Thiry, Antoine Boxus, Willy Roua, Gouvernement flamand, Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL, Sartau SA, Charleroi South Air Pur ASBL, Pierre Grymonprez, Philippe Grisard de la Rochette, Nicole Laloux, Annabelle Denoël-Gevers, Marc Traversin, Joseph Melard, Chantal Michiels, Thierry Regout, René Canfin, Georges Lahaye, Jeanine Postelmans, Christophe Dehousse, Christine Lahaye, Jean-Marc Lesoinne, Jacques Teheux, Anne-Marie Larock, Berbadette Mestdag, Jean-François Serrafin, Françoise Mahoux, Ferdinand Wallraf, Jeanne Mariel, Agnès Fortemps, Georges Serrafin, Jeannine Melen, Groupement Cerexhe-Heuseux/Beaufays ASBL, Action et Défense de l’Environnement de la vallée de la Senne et de ses affluents ASBL, Réserves naturelles RNOB ASBL, Stéphane Banneux, Zénon Darquenne, Guido Durlet, Société régionale wallonne du transport SRWT, Philippe Daras, Bernard Croiselet, Bernard Page, Intercommunale du Brabant Wallon SCRL, Codic Belgique SA, Fédéral Express European Services Inc. v Walloon Region

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 9 April 2010 — Marie-Noëlle Solvay, Le Poumon vert de la Hulpe ASBL, Jacques Solvay de la Hulpe, Jean-Marie Solvay de la Hulpe, La Hulpe — Notre village ASBL, Alix Walsh, André Philips, Les amis de la Forêt de Soignes ASBL, Association des Riverains et Habitants des Communes Proches de l’Aéroport B.S.C.A. (Brussels South Charleroi Airport) ASBL, Grégoire Stassin, André Gilliard, Société Wallone des Aéroports SA (SOWAER), Paul Fastrez, Henriette Fastrez, Infrabel SA, Jean-Pierre Olivier, Pierre Deneye, Paul Thiry, Antoine Boxus, Willy Roua, Gouvernement flamand, Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL, Sartau SA, Charleroi South Air Pur ASBL, Pierre Grymonprez, Philippe Grisard de la Rochette, Nicole Laloux, Annabelle Denoël-Gevers, Marc Traversin, Joseph Melard, Chantal Michiels, Thierry Regout, René Canfin, Georges Lahaye, Jeanine Postelmans, Christophe Dehousse, Christine Lahaye, Jean-Marc Lesoinne, Jacques Teheux, Anne-Marie Larock, Berbadette Mestdag, Jean-François Serrafin, Françoise Mahoux, Ferdinand Wallraf, Jeanne Mariel, Agnès Fortemps, Georges Serrafin, Jeannine Melen, Groupement Cerexhe-Heuseux/Beaufays ASBL, Action et Défense de l’Environnement de la vallée de la Senne et de ses affluents ASBL, Réserves naturelles RNOB ASBL, Stéphane Banneux, Zénon Darquenne, Guido Durlet, Société régionale wallonne du transport SRWT, Philippe Daras, Bernard Croiselet, Bernard Page, Intercommunale du Brabant Wallon SCRL, Codic Belgique SA, Fédéral Express European Services Inc. v Walloon Region
   (Case C-182/10)
   2010/C 179/30
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour Constitutionnelle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Marie-Noëlle Solvay, Le Poumon vert de la Hulpe ASBL, Jacques Solvay de la Hulpe, Jean-Marie Solvay de la Hulpe, La Hulpe — Notre village ASBL, Alix Walsh, André Philips, Les amis de la Forêt de Soignes ASBL, Association des Riverains et Habitants des Communes Proches de l’Aéroport B.S.C.A. (Brussels South Charleroi Airport) ASBL, Grégoire Stassin, André Gilliard, Société Wallone des Aéroports SA (SOWAER), Paul Fastrez, Henriette Fastrez, Infrabel SA, Jean-Pierre Olivier, Pierre Deneye, Paul Thiry, Antoine Boxus, Willy Roua, Gouvernement flamand, Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL, Sartau SA, Charleroi South Air Pur ASBL, Pierre Grymonprez, Philippe Grisard de la Rochette, Nicole Laloux, Annabelle Denoël-Gevers, Marc Traversin, Joseph Melard, Chantal Michiels, Thierry Regout, René Canfin, Georges Lahaye, Jeanine Postelmans, Christophe Dehousse, Christine Lahaye, Jean-Marc Lesoinne, Jacques Teheux, Anne-Marie Larock, Berbadette Mestdag, Jean-François Serrafin, Françoise Mahoux, Ferdinand Wallraf, Jeanne Mariel, Agnès Fortemps, Georges Serrafin, Jeannine Melen, Groupement Cerexhe-Heuseux/Beaufays ASBL, Action et Défense de l’Environnement de la vallée de la Senne et de ses affluents ASBL, Réserves naturelles RNOB ASBL, Stéphane Banneux, Zénon Darquenne, Guido Durlet, Société régionale wallonne du transport SRWT, Philippe Daras, Bernard Croiselet, Bernard Page, Intercommunale du Brabant Wallon SCRL, Codic Belgique SA, Fédéral Express European Services Inc.

      Defendant: Walloon Region

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 2(2) and 9(4) of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (1) be interpreted in accordance with the guidance provided in the Aarhus Convention Implementation Guide?

               2.

                           (a)

                           Must Article 2(2) of the Aarhus Convention be interpreted as excluding from its application legislative acts such as the town-planning and environmental consents granted in accordance with the procedure established by Articles 1 to 4 of the Decree of the Walloon Region of 17 July 2008 on certain consents for which there are overriding reasons in the general interest?

                           (b)

                           Must Article 2(2) of the Aarhus Convention be interpreted as excluding from its application legislative acts such as the ratifications of town-planning and environmental consents contained in Articles 5 to 9 and 14 to 17 of the decree in question?

                           (c)

                           Must Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2) be interpreted as excluding from its application legislative acts such as the town-planning and environmental consents granted in accordance with the procedure established by Articles 1 to 4 of the decree in question?

                           (d)

                           Must Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337/EEC be interpreted as excluding from its application legislative acts such as the ratifications of town-planning and environmental consents contained in Articles 5 to 9 and 14 to 17 of the decree in question?

               3.

                           (a)

                           Must Articles 3(9) and 9(2), (3) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention and Article 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC be interpreted as precluding a procedure such as that established by Articles 1 to 4 of the decree in question, under which the regional legislator grants town-planning and environmental consents which have been prepared by an administrative authority and which are amenable only to the legal actions mentioned in paragraphs B.6. and B.7 of this order that may be brought before the Constitutional Court and the ordinary courts?

                           (b)

                           Must Articles 3(9) and 9(2), (3) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention and Article 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC be interpreted as precluding the adoption of legislative acts such as the retroactive ratifications contained in Articles 5 to 9 and 14 to 17 of the decree in question, which are amenable only to the legal actions mentioned in paragraphs B.6. and B.7 of this order that may be brought before the Constitutional Court and the ordinary courts?

               4.

                           (a)

                           Must Article 6(9) of the Aarhus Convention and Article 9(1) of Directive 85/337/EEC be interpreted as precluding a procedure such as that established by Articles 1 to 4 of the decree in question, under which a decree granting town-planning and environmental consents need not itself contain all the information necessary to establish whether those consents are based on an adequate prior evaluation carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Aarhus Convention and Directive 85/337/EEC?

                           (b)

                           Must Article 6(9) of the Aarhus Convention and Article 9(1) of Directive 85/337/EEC be interpreted as precluding the adoption of legislative acts such as the ratifications contained in Articles 5 to 9 and 14 to 17 of the decree in question, which do not themselves contain all the information necessary to establish whether those consents are based on an adequate prior evaluation carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Aarhus Convention and Directive 85/337/EEC?

               5.

               Must Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3) be interpreted as permitting a legislative authority to authorise projects such as those referred to in Articles 16 and 17 of the decree in question, even though the impact assessment carried out in that connection has been held by the Council of State, in a judgment given under the emergency procedure, to be incomplete and even though the assessment has been contradicted in an Opinion of the authority of the Walloon Region responsible for the ecological management of the natural environment?

               6.

               In the event of a negative reply to Question 5, must Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC be interpreted as permitting the creation of infrastructure designed to accommodate the administrative centre of a private company and a large number of employees to be regarded as an imperative reason of overriding public interest?

      (1)  The Aarhus Convention was concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved, on behalf of the European Community, by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1)

      (2)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40)

      (3)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 63)


title: Case C-81/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 17 February 2014  — Nannoka Vulcanus Industries BV; other party: College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 17 February 2014 — Nannoka Vulcanus Industries BV; other party: College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland
   (Case C-81/14)
   2014/C 142/24
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Nannoka Vulcanus Industries BV

      Other party: College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does it follow from Annex IIB to Council Directive 1999/13/EC (1) of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations that the operator of installations for which a constant solid content of product can be assumed and used to define the reference point for emission reductions, where substitutes containing little or no solvent are still under development, must be given a time extension for the implementation of its reduction scheme, in derogation from the time frame set out in that annex?

         If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

               2.

               Is particular action on the part of the operator of the installation or authorisation from a competent authority required for the conferring of a time extension for the implementation of the reduction scheme provided for in Annex IIB to Directive 1999/13/EC?

               3.

               On the basis of which criteria can the length of the time extension provided for in Annex IIB to Directive 1999/13/EC be determined?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 85, p. 1.


title: Case F-12/12: Action brought on 27 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/32

         Action brought on 27 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-12/12)
   2012/C 138/73
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request for classification at grade AD 11 with retroactive effect as at 1 January 2010 and compensation for damage allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision adopted on 18 October 2011 refusing the applicant’s reclassification at grade AD 11 as from 1 January 2010;

               —

               award compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant for which equitable compensation is estimated to be EUR 22 000;

               —

               alternatively, award compensation for the material damage suffered by the applicant of EUR 11 742,48 for the year 2010, plus, for the following period until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case, a variable amount, with the addition of default and compensatory interest at the required legal rates; and with the addition to that first total of a fixed sum assessed by the Tribunal as appropriate for the compensation for the second component of material damage: the amount of which may be provisionally fixed at EUR 120 000;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-151/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Theologos-Grigorios Khatzithanasis v Ipourgos Igeias kai Kinonikis Allilengiis, OEEK (Organismos Epangelmatikis Ekpaidefsis kai Katartisis) (Directive 92/51/EEC — Recognition of diplomas — Studies completed in an independent study centre not recognised as an educational establishment in the host Member State — Optician)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Theologos-Grigorios Khatzithanasis v Ipourgos Igeias kai Kinonikis Allilengiis, OEEK (Organismos Epangelmatikis Ekpaidefsis kai Katartisis)
   (Case C-151/07) (1)

   (Directive 92/51/EEC - Recognition of diplomas - Studies completed in an ‘independent study centre’ not recognised as an educational establishment in the host Member State - Optician)
   (2009/C 19/03)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Simvoulio tis Epikratias
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Theologos-Grigorios Khatzithanasis

      Defendants: Ipourgos Igeias kai Kinonikis Allilengiis, OEEK (Organismos Epangelmatikis Ekpaidefsis kai Katartisis)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Articles 149 and 150 EC and of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25) — Failure to recognise, in the host Member State, a vocational training qualification conferring a right to pursue the profession of optician in the Member State where that qualification was awarded — Training received, for the greater part, at an establishment which lawfully operates in the host Member State, but which is not recognised, under the legislation of that State, as an educational establishment
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 1(a), 3 and 4 of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that the competent authorities of a host Member State are required, under Article 3 of that directive, subject to the application of Article 4 of that directive, to recognise a diploma awarded by a competent authority in another Member State even though that diploma attests to education and training received, in whole or in part, at an establishment located in the host Member State which, according to the legislation of that State, is not recognised as an educational establishment.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.