No C 94/14              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               22 . 3 . 97
         overland transport operation, merely discovered              removal from the register of Case C-2 11/96 : Commission
         that the goods delivered to him were damaged,                of the European Communities y. Hellenic Republic.
         constitute — and if so under what conditions —
         the place of occurrence of the damage which,                 (<) OJ No C 269, 14. 9 . 1996 .
         according to the judgment of the Court of Justice
         of 30 November 1976 in Case 21 /76 Bier v. Mines
         de Potasse d'Alsace [ 1976] ECR, p. 1735 , may be
         the place ' of the event giving rise to the damage'
         within the meaning of Article 5 ( 3 ) of the
         Convention ?                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-226/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/31 )
2 . May a defendant domiciled in the territory of a
     Contracting State be brought, in another Contracting             By order of 4 December 1996 the President of the Court
     State, before the court hearing an action against a co          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
     defendant not domiciled in the territory of any                  removal from the register of Case C-226/96 : Commission
     Contracting State, on the ground that the dispute is             of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
     indivisible, rather than merely displaying a
    connection ?                                                      O OJ No C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-94/96 (')                        Removal from the register of Case C-227/96 (')
                            ( 97/C 94/28 )                                                        ( 97/C 94/32 )
                                                                      By order of 3 December 1996 the President of the Court
By order of 5 December 1996 the President of the Court                of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                removal from the register of Case C-227/96 : Commission
removal from the register of Case C-94/96 : Commission of             of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
                                                                      n OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
(') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-241/96 ( ')
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C- 109/96,                                              ( 97/C 94/33 )
            C-110/96, C-lll/96 and C-112/96 (')
                              97/C 94/29 )                            By order of 6 December 1996 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
By order of 10 December 1996 the President of the Court               removal from the register of Case C-241 /96 : Commission
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
removal from the register of Joined Cases C-109, C-110,
C-lll and C-112/96 : Commission of the European                       (') OJ No C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .
Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
H OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-244/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/34 )
       Removal from the register of Case C-2 11/96 (')                By order of 13 December 1996 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                            ( 97/C 94/30)                             removal from the register of Case C-244/96 : Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
By order of 5 December 1996 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                (') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .


title: Case C-308/07 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 February 2009 — Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v European Parliament (Appeal — Rules concerning the expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Recovery of improperly paid sums by means of offsetting — Enforcement of a judgment of the Court of First Instance — Right to an impartial tribunal — Res judicata — Principle of sound administration)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 February 2009 — Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v European Parliament
   (Case C-308/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Rules concerning the expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Recovery of improperly paid sums by means of offsetting - Enforcement of a judgment of the Court of First Instance - Right to an impartial tribunal - Res judicata - Principle of sound administration)
   2009/C 90/03
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (represented by: D. Rouget, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: C. Karamarcos, H. Krück and D. Moore, then by the latter two and A. Padowska, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 April 2007 in Case T-132/06 Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v European Parliament, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as in part inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded the appellant’s action for annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 22 March 2006, adopted to implement the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 December 2005 in Case T-146/04 Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v European Parliament — Interpretation of Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance and of the principle of impartiality — Interpretation of Article 27 of the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 10 July 1996 in Case T-482/93: Martin Weber and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Common agricultural policy - Support system for oilseeds - Regulations (EEC) Nos 3766/91 and 525/93 - Actions for annulment of measures - Inadmissibility)

text:
 No C 247/ 12          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 24 . 8 . 96
  1 . the application is rejected;                                    Hemau , represented by Hartwig Schneider, Rechtsanwalt, 8
                                                                      Pacellistraße, Munich, against Commission of the European
 2 . each of the parties will bear its own costs.                     Communities ( Agents : Ulrich Wölker and Claudia Schmidt )
                                                                      — application for the annulment of Commission Regulation
 (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .                                    ( EEC ) No 525/93 of 8 March 1993 establishing the value of
                                                                      the final regional reference amounts for producers of soya
                                                                      beans, rape seed, colza seed and sunflower seed for the
                                                                       1992/93 marketing year ( OJ No L 56 , 1993 , p. 18 ) — the
                                                                      Court of First Instance of the European Communities
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             ( Second Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of
                         of 6 June 1996                               H. Kirschner, President, and B. Vesterdorf, C. W. Bellamy,
 in Case T-391/94 : Jean Baiwir v. Commission of the                  A. Kalogeropoulos and A. Potocki , Judges; H. Jung,
                   European Communities ( 1 )                         Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 July 1996 , in which it :
 (Officials — Act adversely affecting an official —                   I. dismisses the application as inadmissible;
  Time-limits under the Staff Regulations — Inadmissibility
                    — Action for damages).                            2 . orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay the
                           ( 96/C 247/24 )                                 costs .
                (Language of the case: French)                        (') OJ No C 177, 29 . 6 . 1993 .
 In Case T-391 /94 : Jean Baiwir, an official of the
 Commission of the European Communities , residing at
 Court-Saint-Etienne ( Belgium ), represented by Georges
 Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 Sari , 1 Rue Glesener v. Commission of the European                                         of 11 July 1996
 Communities ( Agents : first, Joseph Griesmar, then Julian
 Currall, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck ) — application for           in Joined Cases T-528/93 , T-542/93 , T-543/93' and
 annulment of the memorandum of 12 February 1993 from                T-546/93 : Métropole Télévision SA and Others v.
the Head of Unit IX . A. 6 of the Commission, purporting to                  Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
classify the applicant as 'cross-category' for the purposes of        (Competition — Decisions of associations of undertakings
the 1 993 promotions within the career bracket, and also for         — Agreements between undertakings — Exemption
an order that the applicant be reinstated in his career as an                                      decision)
official in Grade B 4/2 with retroactive effect from 1 January                                 ( 96/C 247/26 )
 1993 , and compensation for the non-material damage
suffered — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ),
composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh and J. D.                    (Languages of the case: Spanish, French and Italian)
Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 June 1996 , the operative            In Joined Cases T-528/93 , T-542/93 , T-543/93 and
part of which is as follows :                                        T-546/93 : Métropole Television SA, established in Paris,
                                                                     represented by Pierre Deprez, Philippe Dian and , at the
 1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                   hearing, by Didier Théophile, all of the Paris Bar, with an
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
2 . each of the parties will bear its own costs.                     Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue , Reti Televisive Italiana SpA,
                                                                     established in Rome, represented by Carlo Mezzanotte and
(') OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                     Giovanni Motzo, of the Rome Bar, and Aurelio Pappalardo,
                                                                     of the Trapani Bar, and, at the hearing, by Massimo Merola ,
                                                                     of the Trapani Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
                                                                     Albert Ier , supported by Sociedade Independente de
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Comunicação SA ( SIC ), established at Linda-a-Velha
                        of 10 July 1996                              ( Portugal ), represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz, of the
       in Case T-482/93 : Martin Weber and Others v.                 Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )                 the Chambers of Carole Kerschen , 31 Grand-Rue,
                                                                     Gestevisión Telecinco SA, established in Madrid ,
(Common agriculturalpolicy — Support system for oilseeds             represented by Santiago Munoz Machado, of the Madrid
— Regulations (EEC) Nos 3766/91 and 525/93 — Actions                 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
        for annulment of measures — Inadmissibility)                 Chambers of Carlos Amo Quinones, 2 Rue Gabriel
                          ( 96/ C 247/25 )                           Lippmann , and Antena 3 de Television , established in
                                                                     Madrid , represented by Fernando Pombo Garcia , Ricardo
               (Language of the case: German)                        Garcia Vicente , Emiliano Garayar Gutierrez and Maria
                                                                     Luisa Tierno Centella , of the Madrid Bar, with an address
In Case T-482/93 : Martin Weber and Maria Weber, residing            for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Claude
at Hemau ( Germany ), Martin Weber GdbR , established at             Wassenich , 6 Rue Dicks, against Commission of the


title: Case C-458/17 P: Appeal brought on 31 July 2017 by Rami Makhlouf against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 May 2017 in Case T-410/16, Rami Makhlouf v Council of the European Union

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/31

         Appeal brought on 31 July 2017 by Rami Makhlouf against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 May 2017 in Case T-410/16, Rami Makhlouf v Council of the European Union

   (Case C-458/17 P)
   (2017/C 309/42)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Rami Makhlouf (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present appeal to be admissible and well founded;

         consequently,

               —

               set aside the judgment of 18 May 2017 delivered by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-410/16, Rami Makhlouf v Council of the European Union, ECLI:EU:T:2017:349;

         and
   adjudge the case afresh and accordingly:

               —

               annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 (1) and the subsequent measures implementing that decision, in so far as they relate to the appellant; and

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law in that the General Court infringed the appellant’s right to be heard, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, prior to the adoption of the new restrictive measures;
   The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law consisting of a distortion of facts, in that the General Court disregarded the articles lodged by the appellant in support of his action for annulment and designed to demonstrate that he did not support the Syrian regime;
   The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law in that the General Court did not find the provisions of Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, (2) under which membership of the Al-Assad or Makhlouf families constitutes an autonomous criterion justifying the imposition of sanctions, to be unlawful, while at the same time reversing the burden of proof;
   The fourth ground of appeal alleges an error of law and a failure to state reasons in that the General Court took the view that the concept of a ‘prominent businessman’ was sufficiently precise to include the appellant on the lists of persons and entities covered by the restrictive measures and that it failed to justify why it took the view that the appellant had influence over the Syrian regime.

      (1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125).

      (2)  Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2002 in Case C-271/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen): Gemeente Steenbergen v Luc Baten (Brussels Convention — Scope — Action under a right of recourse under national legislation providing for payment of allowances by way of social assistance — Concept of "civil matters" — Concept of "social security")

text:
C 323/14                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                         21.12.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       2.    The term ‘solely’ in Note 1(b) to Chapter 90 of the Combined
                                                                                Nomenclature must be interpreted as meaning that the note
                                                                                does not exclude from that chapter belts and supports of
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                          which characteristics other than their elasticity contribute to a
                                                                                significant extent to the intended effect on the organ to be
                                                                                supported or held.
                        of 7 November 2002
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 258 of 7.10.2000.
In Joined Cases C-260/00 to C-263/00 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht,
     Kassel): Lohmann GmbH & Co. KG and Others ( 1)
(Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classifi-
cation in the Combined Nomenclature of wrist orthoses,
lumbar support belts, elbow supports and knee supports —                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   Note 1(b) to Chapter 90 of the Combined Nomenclature)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                           (2002/C 323/15)
                                                                                of 14 November 2002
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                              in Case C-271/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                              from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen): Gemeente
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                           Steenbergen v Luc Baten (1)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              (Brussels Convention — Scope — Action under a right of
                                                                              recourse under national legislation providing for payment of
                                                                              allowances by way of social assistance — Concept of ‘civil
                                                                                matters’ — Concept of ‘social security’)
In Joined Cases C-260/00 to C-263/00: Reference to the Court
under Article 234 EC by the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel
(Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                                           (2002/C 323/16)
before that court between Lohmann GmbH & Co. KG (C-260/
00 to C-262/00), medi Bayreuth Weihermüller & Voigtmann                                           (Language of the case: Dutch)
GmbH & Co. KG (C-263/00) and Oberfinanzdirektion Ko-
blenz, on the interpretation of heading 9021 of the Combined
Nomenclature, contained in Annex I to Council Regulation                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical                                   in the European Court Reports)
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987
L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1734/96 of 9 September 1996 (OJ 1996 L 238, p. 1), the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of                 In Case C-271/00: Reference to the Court pursuant to the
the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporte-                      Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of
ur), S. von Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate                   Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdic-
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,               tion and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commer-
has given a judgment on 7 November 2002, in which it has                      cial Matters by the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium),
ruled:                                                                        for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                              court between Gemeente Steenbergen and Luc Baten, on the
                                                                              interpretation of Article 1 of the abovementioned Convention
1.    Tariff heading 9021 of the Combined Nomenclature, contained             of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by
      in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of                    the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
      23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on          Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
      the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission                     Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 and
      Regulation (EC) No 1734/96 of 9 September 1996, must be                 — amended version — p. 77) and by the Convention of
      interpreted as meaning that products such as wrist orthoses,            25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic
      lumbar support belts, elbow supports and knee supports fall             (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
      within that heading if they display characteristics which               of: C. W. A. Timmermans, President of the Fourth Chamber,
      distinguish them, in particular by the materials of which they          acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, D. A. O. Edward,
      are made, their method of operation or their adjustability to the       A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges;
      patient’s specific handicaps, from ordinary belts and supports          A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Adminis-
      for general use. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether     trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 November
      that is the case in the main proceedings.                               2002, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 21.12.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 323/15
1.     The first paragraph of Article 1 of the Convention of                 assisted by E. Fitzsimons, and E. Galligan, BL): Application for
       27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of              a declaration that:
       Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by
       the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
       Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
       Great Britain and Northern Ireland and by the Convention of
       25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic,            —     by failing to ensure compliance with microbiological
       must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘civil matters’          parameters 57 (total coliforms) and 58 (faecal coliforms)
       encompasses an action under a right of recourse whereby a                   of Annex I to Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July
       public body seeks from a person governed by private law recovery            1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human
       of sums paid by it by way of social assistance to the divorced              consumption (OJ 1980 L 229, p. 11) in respect of certain
       spouse and the child of that person, provided that the basis and            public water supplies and certain group water supplies
       the detailed rules relating to the bringing of that action are              (other than those providing less than 10 m3 a day as an
       governed by the rules of the ordinary law in regard to                      average or serving fewer than 50 persons, unless the
       maintenance obligations. Where the action under a right of                  water is supplied as part of a commercial or public
       recourse is founded on provisions by which the legislature                  activity) identified in official drinking water reports and
       conferred on the public body a prerogative of its own, that                 in correspondence concerning Ballycroy (Ireland), and
       action cannot be regarded as being brought in ‘civil matters’.
2.     Point 3 of the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Brussels
       Convention must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of
       ‘social security’ does not encompass the action under a right of      —     by failing, in its implementing legislation, to reflect the
       recourse by which a public body seeks from a person governed                binding character of the requirements of Annex I to the
       by private law recovery in accordance with the rules of the                 directive in relation to group water supplies, Ireland has
       ordinary law of sums paid by it by way of social assistance to              failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 7(6), 18 and
       the divorced spouse and the child of that person.                           19 of that directive and under the EC Treaty,
( 1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
                                                                             the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                             President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken
                                                                             and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano,
                                                                             Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
                                                                             given a judgment on 14 November 2002, in which it:
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                             1.    Declares that:
                         of 14 November 2002
in Case C-316/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                             ties v Ireland ( 1)                                   —     by failing to ensure compliance with microbiological
                                                                                parameters 57 (total coliforms) and 58 (faecal coliforms)
                                                                                of Annex I to Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                                   1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human
Directive 80/778/EEC — Quality of water intended for                                     consumption in respect of certain public water supplies
      human consumption — Incomplete implementation)                                     and certain group water supplies (other than those
                                                                                providing less than 10 m 3 a day as an average or serving
                                                                                fewer than 50 persons, unless the water is supplied as
                            (2002/C 323/17)                                              part of a commercial or public activity) identified in
                                                                                official drinking water reports and in correspondence
                                                                                concerning Ballycroy, Ireland, and
                      (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-316/00, Commission of the European Communities                           —     by failing, in its implementing legislation, to reflect the
(Agent: R. B. Wainwright) v Ireland (Agent: D. J. O’Hagan,                               binding character of the requirements of Annex I to the


title: Case T -270/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  29 September 2005  — BIC v Commission

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/19

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 September 2005 — BIC v Commission
   (Case T -270/04) (1)

   (2005/C 315/34)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case T-295/03: Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Poli Sud s.r.l. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 264/34              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                     1.11.2003
Goods or services:             Goods and services in Classes 16           Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Proteco s.r.l.
                               and 41                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
Decision        contested      Refusal by the examiner to register
before the Board of            the mark in respect of ‘printed                                    (Case T-296/03)
Appeal:                        matter’ in Class 16 and ‘arranging
                               and organising of trade fairs, exhi-
                                                                                (2003/C 264/59)
                               bitions, seminars and congresses’
                               in Class 41
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
Appeal:
Pleas in law:                  —    The mark is distinctive
                                    within the meaning of                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                    Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                    (EC) No 40/94;                        European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Proteco s.r.l.,
                                                                          represented by M.A. Calabrese, lawyer.
                               —    The mark is not a descriptive
                                    indication within the mean-
                                    ing of Article 7(1)(c) of Regu-       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                    lation (EC) No 40/94.
                                                                          —     annul the contested refusal.
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Poli Sud s.r.l.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-295/03)                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                          advanced in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission (1).
                        (2003/C 264/58)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003, p. 43.
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Poli Sud s.r.l.,
represented by M.A. Calabrese, lawyer.
                                                                          Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Tomasetto Achille
                                                                          s.a.s. di Tomasetto Andrea & C. against the Commission
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                               of the European Communities
—     annul the contested refusal.
                                                                                (Case T-297/03)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 264/60)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission (1).
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
(1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003, p. 43.                                         European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Tomasetto
                                                                          Achille s.a.s. di Tomasetto Andrea & C., represented by
                                                                          M.A. Calabrese, lawyer.


title: Case C-101/06: Order of the President of the Court of 2 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/53

         Order of the President of the Court of 2 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-101/06) (1)

   (2006/C 326/113)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 86, 08.04.2006.


title: Case C-457/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden by order of that court of  23 November 2005  in Schutzverband der Spirituosen-Industrie e.V. v Diageo Deutschland GmbH

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden by order of that court of 23 November 2005 in Schutzverband der Spirituosen-Industrie e.V. v Diageo Deutschland GmbH
   (Case C-457/05)
   (2006/C 60/42)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Wiesbaden Regional Court) (Germany) of 23 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 27 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Schutzverband der Spirituosen-Industrie e.V. and Diageo Deutschland GmbH on the following questions:

               1.

               Is the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 5(3)(b), in conjunction with Article 5(3)(d) and Annex III, section 4, of Council Directive 75/106/EEC of 19 December 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making-up by volume of certain prepackaged liquids (OJ 1975 L 42, p. 1), as most recently amended by the Act of Accession of 23 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33), (‘Directive 75/106/EEC’) to be construed as meaning that products in packaging with a volume of 0.071 litre, which are lawfully manufactured and/or marketed in Ireland or the United Kingdom, may also be marketed in all of the other EC Member States?

               2.

               If Question 1 should be answered in the negative: is the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 5(3)(b), in conjunction with Article 5(3)(d) and Annex III, section 4, of Directive 75/106/EEC compatible with the principle of free movement of goods in Articles 28 EC and 30 EC?


title: Judgment of the Court of 9 September 2003 in Case C-137/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office): The Queen v The Competition Commission, formerly The Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, The Director General of Fair Trading, ex parte: Milk Marque Ltd, National Farmers' Union, third party: Dairy Industry Federation (DIF) (Common agricultural policy — Articles 32 EC to 38 EC — Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 — Common organisation of the market in milk and milk products — Target price for milk — Regulation No 26 — Application of certain competition rules to the production of and trade in agricultural products — Whether Member States may apply national competition rules to milk producers who choose to organise themselves into cooperatives and hold market power)

text:
C 264/2               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             1.11.2003
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     1.   Articles 32 to 38 EC, Council Regulation No 26 of 4 April
                                                                              1962 applying certain rules of competition to production of
                                                                              and trade in agricultural products and Regulation (EEC)
                                                                              No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common
                    of 9 September 2003                                       organisation of the market in milk and milk products, as
                                                                              amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1587/96 of 30 July
                                                                              1996, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the sector
in Case C-137/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     governed by the common organisation of the market in milk
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s                          and milk products, the national authorities in principle retain
Bench Division (Crown Office): The Queen v The Compe-                         jurisdiction to apply national competition law to a milk
tition Commission, formerly The Monopolies and Merg-                          producers’ cooperative in a powerful position on the national
ers Commission, Secretary of State for Trade and Indus-                       market.
try, The Director General of Fair Trading, ex parte: Milk
Marque Ltd, National Farmers’ Union, third party: Dairy
                Industry Federation (DIF) (1)
                                                                              Where the national competition authorities act in the sector
                                                                              governed by the common organisation of the market in milk
                                                                              and milk products, they are under an obligation to refrain from
(Common agricultural policy — Articles 32 EC to 38 EC —                       adopting any measure which might undermine or create
Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 — Common organisation of                           exceptions to that common organisation.
the market in milk and milk products — Target price
for milk — Regulation No 26 — Application of certain
competition rules to the production of and trade in agricul-
tural products — Whether Member States may apply                              Measures taken by national competition authorities in the sector
national competition rules to milk producers who choose to                    governed by the common organisation of the market in milk
organise themselves into cooperatives and hold market                         and milk products may not, in particular, produce effects which
                             power)                                           are such as to impede the working of the machinery provided
                                                                              for by that common organisation. However, the mere fact that
                                                                              the prices charged by a dairy cooperative were already lower
                                                                              than the target price for milk before those authorities intervened
                        (2003/C 264/02)                                       is not sufficient to render the measures taken by them in relation
                                                                              to that cooperative in application of national competition law
                                                                              unlawful under Community law.
                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                              Furthermore, such measures may not compromise the objectives
                                                                              of the common agricultural policy as set out in Article 33(1) EC.
                                                                              The national competition authorities are under an obligation to
                                                                              ensure that any contradictions between the various objectives
In Case C-137/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    laid down in Article 33 EC are reconciled where necessary,
EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s                 without giving any one of them so much weight as to render
Bench Division (Crown Office) for a preliminary ruling in the                 the achievement of the others impossible.
proceedings pending before that court between The Queen
and The Competition Commission, formerly The Monopolies
and Mergers Commission, Secretary of State for Trade and
Industry, The Director General of Fair Trading, ex parte: Milk
Marque Ltd, National Farmers’ Union, third party: Dairy
Industry Federation (DIF), on the interpretation of Articles 12,         2.   The function of the target price for milk laid down in
28 to 30, 32 to 38, 49 and 55 EC, of Council Regulation                       Article 3(1) of Regulation No 804/68, as amended by
No 26 of 4 April 1962 applying certain rules of competition                   Regulation No 1587/96, does not preclude the national
to production of and trade in agricultural products (OJ, English              competition authorities from using that price for the purposes
Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 129) and of Regulation (EEC)                    of investigating the market power of an agricultural undertaking
No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common                        by comparing variations in actual prices with the target price.
organisation of the market in milk and milk products (OJ,
English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 176), as amended by
Council Regulation (EC) No 1587/96 of 30 July 1996 (OJ
1996 L 206, p. 21), the Court, composed of: M. Wathelet,
President of the First and Fifth Chambers, acting as President,          3.   In the context of the application of national competition law,
R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-                       the Treaty rules on the free movement of goods do not preclude
bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann,                     the competent authorities of a Member State from prohibiting
V. Skouris (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric, and J.N. Cunha               a dairy cooperative which enjoys market power from entering
Rodrigues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,               into contracts with undertakings, including undertakings estab-
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment              lished in other Member States, for the processing, on its behalf,
on 9 September 2003, in which it has ruled:                                   of milk produced by its members.
 ---pagebreak--- 1.11.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 264/3
4.    Article 12 EC and the second subparagraph of Article 34(2)                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      EC do not preclude the adoption of measures such as those at
      issue in the main proceedings against a dairy cooperative which
      enjoys market power and exploits that position in a manner                                      (Sixth Chamber)
      contrary to the public interest, even though large vertically-
      integrated dairy cooperatives are permitted to operate in other
      Member States.
                                                                                of 18 September 2003
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                                in Case C-338/00 P: Volkswagen AG (1)
                                                                             (Appeal — Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles
                                                                             — Partitioning of the market — Article 85 of the EC Treaty
                                                                             (now Article 81 EC) — Regulation (EEC) No 123/85
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      — Whether the infringement can be attributed to the
                                                                             undertaking concerned — Right to a fair hearing — Duty to
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                   state reasons — Legal consequences of disclosure to the press
                                                                             — Effect of propriety of the notification on the calculation
                       of 18 September 2003                                                     of the fine — Cross-appeal)
in Case C-331/00: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)                                                          (2003/C 264/04)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Financial years 1996,
1997 and 1998 — Arable crops — Beef — Aid for early                                             (Language of the case: German)
                              retirement)
                          (2003/C 264/03)                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-338/00 P, Volkswagen AG, established in Wolfsburg
                                                                             (Germany) (represented by R. Bechtold): Appeal against the
                                                                             judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
In Case C-331/00, Hellenic Republic (Agents: V. Kontolaimos                  Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 6 July 2000 in Case T-62/
and I. K. Chalkias, as well as by C. Tsiavou) v Commission of                98 Volkswagen v Commission [2000] ECR II-2707, seeking
the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-Durande):                         to have that judgment set aside in part, the other party to the
Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision                     proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities
2000/449/EC of 5 July 2000 excluding from Community                          (Agent: K. Wiedner, assisted by H.-J. Freund), the Court (Sixth
financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States                  Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural                     Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris (Rapporteur), F. Macken
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000 L 180,                          and N. Colneric, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
p. 49), in so far as its concerns the Hellenic Republic, the Court           General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),                    trar, has given a judgment on 18 September 2003, in which it:
acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola,
P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-               1.    Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;
trar, has given a judgment on 18 September 2003, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the application;                                             2.    Orders each party to bear its own costs.
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.


title: Case T-102/04: Actionbrought on 8 March 2004 by David Cornwell againstthe Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/84

         Action brought on 8 March 2004 by David Cornwell against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-102/04)
   (2004/C 106/165)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 March 2004 by David Cornwell, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision in so far as it revises and fixes his classification at Grade A4, step 4, on 1 August 2000 and at Grade A4, step 5, on 16 March 2003, and in so far as the financial effects of that decision are limited to the date of 5 October 1995;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant is challenging the decision of 14 April 2003 by the appointing authority revising and fixing his recruitment classification at Grade A5, step 3, on 1 May 1992, revising and fixing his subsequent classification at Grade A4, step 4, on 1 August 2000, and at Grade A4, step 5, on 16 March 2003, and limiting the financial effects thereof to 5 October 1995.
   The pleas in law and arguments submitted are similar to those in Case T-402/03 Katalagarianakis v Commission (OJ 2004 C 35, p. 17).


title: Appeal brought on 26 March 1998 by Max Kögler against the order made on 20 January 1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-160/96 between Max Kögler and the Court of Justice of the European Communities, supported by the Council of the European Union (Case C-82/98 P)

text:
C 209/14               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.7.98
     must in any event be able to adopt interim measures                   (3) alternatively, specify a date in the near future
     within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of that                       when that calculation and determination are to
     directive and to annul the contracting authority's                          take place;
     award decision, and the right to rely in proceedings on
     that obligation as against a Member State?                      (III) order the respondents to pay the costs.
C. If Question B is answered in the affirmative:                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     Ð     The contested order wrongly held that the request
     Is the obligation described under A. also sufficiently
                                                                           made pursuant to Article 90(1) of the Staff
     clear and precise to mean that in such a procedure the
                                                                           Regulations, and thus the action, were inadmissible.
     national court must disregard contrary provisions of
                                                                           The appellant contests, first, the construction placed
     national law which would prevent the court from
                                                                           on the provisions applicable in the present case,
     fulfilling that obligation, and must fulfil that
                                                                           which is diametrically opposed to the clear wording
     obligation directly as part of Community law even if
                                                                           of those provisions and is wholly unjustified.
     national law lacks any basis on which to act?
                                                                           Contrary to the view expressed by the Court of First
                                                                           Instance, the words without prejudice to' appearing
(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 33.                                           in the phrase without prejudice to the decisions to
                                                                           be taken by the Council' are meaningless for the
                                                                           purposes of determining whether the fixing of the
                                                                           weightings is to be definitive or provisional, because
                                                                           they are compatible with both of those
                                                                           interpretations. The answer to that question is, by
                                                                           contrast, clearly apparent from the words to be
Appeal brought on 26 March 1998 by Max Kögler
                                                                           taken', which, as is indicated by the corresponding
against the order made on 20 January 1998 by the Third
                                                                           wording in the French text Ð . . . est appeleÂ aÁ
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           prendre' Ð can only be intended to mean must take'
Communities in Case T-160/96 between Max Kögler and
                                                                           or is required to take'. Contrary to the reasoning
the Court of Justice of the European Communities,
                                                                           contained in the contested order, the appellant has at
      supported by the Council of the European Union
                                                                           no time asserted that he relied on the application of
                        (Case C-82/98 P)                                   the Berlin weightings; there was no need whatever
                          (98/C 209/28)                                    for him to do so in order to substantiate his claim.
                                                                           On the contrary, the appellant clearly stated that he
                                                                           relied solely on the undertaking by the Council that
                                                                           a definitive regulation, the content of which was
An appeal against the order made on 20 January 1998 by
                                                                           unknown, would in due course be adopted.
the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-160/96 between Max
Kögler and the Court of Justice of the European                            The Court of First Instance wrongly stated that the
Communities, supported by the Council of the European                      appellant should have contested the pension
Union, was brought before the Court of Justice of the                      statements received by him for the period from 1 July
European Communities on 26 March 1998 by Max                               1991 to 30 June 1994 within the prescribed time-
Kögler, represented by Theo Baltes, Rechtsanwalt, Trier,                   limit; where a person fails to contest a measure
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                           within the time-limit laid down, he cannot start time
Chambers of ReneÂ Weber, 3 Rue de la Loge, L-1945                          running afresh by submitting a request pursuant to
Luxembourg.                                                                Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations. In the present
                                                                           case, the Court of First Instance could only have
                                                                           come to that conclusion, which is certainly a correct
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                statement of the position as regards definitive
                                                                           decisions of the appointing authority, because, by
                                                                           failing to take into account the fact that the
(I)    set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                           provisions on which the said pension statements
       20 January 1998 dismissing as inadmissible the
                                                                           were based were provisional, and by nonsensically
       application in Case T-160/96 (1);
                                                                           misconstruing the appellant's reliance on the
                                                                           undertaking given by the Council, it failed to take
(II)   determine the dispute definitively, and in particular:              account of the distinctive characteristics of the
                                                                           present case.
       (1) annul the decision of the respondent's
             Complaints Committee of 1 July 1996;                    Ð     The appellant requests the Court of Justice to
                                                                           determine the entire dispute, since, in his view, the
       (2) rule that the appellant's retirement pension for                only matters to be decided are points of law.
             the period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1994 be
             recalculated and definitively determined on the         (1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998, p. 23.
             basis of the weightings for Berlin fixed annually
             by the Council;


title: Case C-452/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order of that court dated 17 October 2003, in the case of 1) RAL (Channel Islands) Ltd, 2) RAL Ltd, 3) RAL Services Ltd, 4) RAL Machines Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

text:
10.1.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 7/21
2.    Must Articles 43, 48 and 49 of the EC Treaty be                          common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
      interpreted as precluding national rules such as those laid              assessment, in particular Articles 2, 4, and 9, the Thir-
      down in Legislative Decree No 241 of 9 July 1997, as                     teenth Council Directive (86/560/EEC) (2) of 17 Novem-
      amended by Legislative Decree No 490 of 28 December                      ber 1986 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
      1998, read together with the consolidated law on income                  Member States relating to turnover taxes — arrangements
      tax (Decree of the President of the Republic No 917 of                   for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons
      22 December 1986) and Law No 413 of 30 December                          not established in Community territory, in particular
      1991, which exclusively reserves the right to provide                    Articles 1 and 2, and the general principles of Community
      certain types of tax advice to a single category of                      law:
      operators, namely the Centri di Assistenza Fiscale (or
      CAFs), and denies other economic operators in the sector
      who are nevertheless professionally qualified to provide
      tax and accounting advice (doctors, commercial account-                  1.   How is the expression ‘fixed establishment’ in
      ants, lawyers and work consultants) the opportunity of                        Article 9 of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted?
      providing, on the same terms and conditions, the type of
      advice reserved to the CAFs?
                                                                               2.   What are the factors to be considered in determining
3.    Must Article 87 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as                            whether the supply of slot gaming services is from
      meaning that a measure such as that arising from the                          the business establishment of a company such as Cl
      rules laid down in Legislative Decree No 241 of 9 July                        or from any fixed establishments that a company
      1997, and in particular Article 38 thereof, which provides                    such as Cl might possess?
      for payment to be made to CAFs from State funds in
      respect of the activities referred to in Articles 34(4) and
      37(2) of that legislative decree, constitute State aid?
                                                                               3.   In particular:
                                                                                a)   Where the business of a company (‘A’) is
                                                                                structured in circumstances such as those of the
                                                                                present case so that a connected company (‘B’),
                                                                                whose business establishment lies outside the
                                                                                territory of the Community, supplies slot gam-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                                  ing services and the sole purpose of the struc-
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order                                   ture is to eliminate A’s liability to pay VAT in
of that court dated 17 October 2003, in the case of 1) RAL                               the State in which it is established:
(Channel Islands) Ltd, 2) RAL Ltd, 3) RAL Services Ltd,
4) RAL Machines Ltd against Commissioners of Customs
                            and Excise                                                   (i)   can the slot gaming services be regarded
                                                                                as supplied from a fixed establishment in
                                                                                that Member State; and, if so,
                         (Case C-452/03)
                          (2004/C 7/34)                                                  (ii) are the slot gaming services to be deemed
                                                                                to be supplied from the fixed establish-
                                                                                ment or are they deemed to be supplied
                                                                                from the place where B has established its
                                                                                business?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of Justice
(England & Wales), Chancery Division, dated 17 October 2003,
which was received at the Court Registry on 27 October 2003,                        b)   Where the business of a company (‘A’) is
for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1) RAL (Channel Islands)                         structured so that, for the purposes of the place
Ltd, 2) RAL Ltd, 3) RAL Services Ltd, 4) RAL Machines Ltd and                            of supply rules, a connected company (‘B’), in
Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the following                                     circumstances such as those of the present case,
questions:                                                                               purports to supply slot gaming services from a
                                                                                business establishment outside the territory of
                                                                                the Community and has no fixed establishment,
(1) In the circumstances of the present case and
                                                                                from which those services are provided, in the
                                                                                Member State in which A is established and the
(2) having regard to the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/                                sole purpose of the structure is to eliminate A’s
      EEC) (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the                                liability to pay VAT in that State on those
      laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                             services:
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/22                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           10.1.2004
                (i)   do the transactions between B and connec-            trative Court) dated 23 October 2003, which was received at
                      ted companies within the Member State                the Court Registry on 27 October 2003, for a preliminary
                      (‘A’, ‘C’ and ‘D’) qualify for VAT purposes          ruling in the case of The Queen on the application of 1) ABNA
                      as supplies made by or to those companies            Ltd, 2) Denis Brinicombe (a partnership), 3) BOCM Pauls Ltd,
                      in the course of their economic activities;          4) Devenish Nutrition Ltd, 5) Nutrition Services (International)
                      if not,                                              Ltd, 6) Primary Diets Ltd and 1) Secretary of State for Health,
                                                                           2) Food Standards Agency on the following question:
                (ii) what factors should be considered in
                      determining the identity of the supplier of
                      the slot gaming services?                            Are Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2002/02 (1) and/or Article 1(4)
                                                                           of Directive 2002/02, to the extent that it amends
      4.   a)   Is there a principle of abuse of right which               Article 5c(2)(a) of Directive 79/373 (2) by requiring percentages
                (independently of the interpretation given to              to be listed, invalid by reason of
                the VAT Directives) is capable of precluding the
                advantage sought in a case such as the present?            a.    the absence of a legal basis in Article 152(4)(b) EC;
           b)   If so, how does it operate in the circumstances            b.    infringement of the fundamental right to property;
                such as the present?
                                                                           c.    infringement of the principle of proportionality?
      5.   a)   What significance, if any, should be attached to
                the fact that A, C and D are not subsidiaries of
                B and that B does not control A, C and D either
                legally or economically?                                   (1) Directive 2002/02/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                               Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive 79/373/
                                                                               EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs and repealing
           b)   Would it make a difference to any of the                       Commission Directive 91/357/EEC (OJ L 63, 06.03.2002, p. 23).
                answers given above if the type of management              (2) Directive 79/373/EEC of the Council of 2 April 1979 on the
                undertaken by B at its business establishment                  marketing of compound feedingstuffs (OJ L 86, 06.04.1979,
                outside the territory of the Community were                    p. 30).
                necessary for the provision of slot gaming
                services to customers and neither A, C nor D
                performs those activities?
(1) OJ L 145, 13.06.77, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 326, 21.11.1986, p. 40.
                                                                           Action brought on 27 October 2003 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-456/03)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court                                                 (2004/C 7/36)
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
(Administrative Court), by order of that court dated
23 October 2003, in the case of The Queen on the
application of 1) ABNA Ltd, 2) Denis Brinicombe (a part-
nership), 3) BOCM Pauls Ltd, 4) Devenish Nutrition Ltd,                    An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
5) Nutrition Services (International) Ltd, 6) Primary Diets                Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 October
Ltd against 1) Secretary of State for Health, 2) Food                      2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                        Standards Agency                                   represented by Karen Banks, acting as Agent.
                         (Case C-453/03)
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (2004/C 7/35)                                   —     declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
                                                                                regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                                comply with Directive 1998/44/EC (1) of the European
                                                                                Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           protection of biotechnological inventions, the Italian
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                            Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Adminis-                      of that directive;


title: Case C-158/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven lodged on  23 March 2006  — Stichting ROM-projecten v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven lodged on 23 March 2006 — Stichting ROM-projecten v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
   (Case C-158/06)
   (2006/C 154/11)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Stichting ROM-projecten

      Defendants: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 6 of the Commission Decision of 16 October 1995 concerning a contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) for an operational programme within the framework of the SME Community initiative for the benefit of areas eligible under Objectives 1 and 2 in the Netherlands (C(95) 1753) unconditional and sufficiently clear and precise to be directly applicable in the national legal order?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:
               Must Article 249 EC be interpreted as meaning that Article 6 of that decision has a direct effect so as to require an individual, as a final beneficiary, to enter into the legally binding commitments referred to in that respect and to specifically allocate the requisite finance no later than 31 December 1999?

               3.

               If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative:
               Does Article 38(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1) of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, viewed in the light of the principles of Community law, leave the Member States scope to refrain from recovery on account of an infringement of a provision where the subsidy beneficiary concerned was unaware of that provision and is not at fault for its lack of knowledge of that provision?

      (1)  OJ L 161, 21.06.2001, p.1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 23 January 1997 in Case C-463/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf): Katholische Kirchengemeinde St. Martinus Elten v. Landwirtschaftskammer Rheinland, joined parties: Arnold Derksen, Johann Thyssen (Additional levy on milk - Calculation of the reference quantity - Taking into account of a quantity produced in another Member State)

text:
 No C 74/4            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8 . 3 . 97
 Articles 48, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty do not apply to a             concluded a cultivation contract with a group of
 situation which is confined in all respects within a single          producers, as referring to the delivery, by a producer or
 Member State.                                                        group of producers to the processor, of a quantity of
                                                                       tobacco to be processed in performance of the cultivation
                                                                       contract.
 H OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Third Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 16 January 1997                                                       ( Sixth Chamber)
 in Case C-273/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                    of 23 January 1997
 the Pretura Circondariale, Verona): Impresa Agricola
 Buratti Leonardo, Pierluigi e Livio v. Tabacchicoltori               in Case C-463/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
           Associati Veneti Soc. coop, ari (TAV) (')                  the Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf): Katholische Kirchen
                                                                      gemeinde St. Martinus Elten v. Landwirtschaftskammer
 (Common organization of the market — Raw tobacco —                   Rheinland, joined parties: Arnold Derksen, Johann
 Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3478/92 — Premium                                                    Thyssen (')
 system for raw tobacco — Calculation of the premium to
 be paid by a group of producers to the individual                    (Additional levy on milk — Calculation of the reference
                            producer)                                 quantity — Taking into account of a quantity produced in
                                                                                another Member State)
                           97/C 74/06
                                                                                ( 97/C 74/07
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-273/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     In Case C-463/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale ( District
Magistrate's Court), Verona, Sezione Distaccata di Isola             of the EC Treaty from the Verwaltungsgericht
della Scala (Isola della Scala Division ) (Italy) for a               (Administrative Court) Düsseldorf, Germany, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that            preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Impresa Agricola Buratti Leonardo, Pierlui            Court between Katholische Kirchengemeinde St. Martinus
gi e Livio and Tabacchicoltori Associati Veneti Soc. coop,           Elten and Landwirtschaftskammer Rheinland, joined
arl (TAV) — on the interpretation of Articles 10 and 11 of           parties: Arnold Derksen, Johann Thyssen — on the
Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3478/92 of 1 December               interpretation of the rules governing the additional levy on
 1992 laying down detailed rules for the application of the          milk introduced by Council Regulation ( EEC) No 856/84
premium system for raw tobacco ( OJ No L 351 , 2 . 12.               of 31 March 1984 amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68
 1992, p. 17), as amended by Commission Regulation ( EC )            on the common organization of the market in milk and
No 3477/93 of 17 December 1993 concerning the                        milk products ( OJ No L 90, 9 . 4 . 1984, p. 10 ), Council
agricultural conversion rates to be applied in the tobacco           Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting
sector ( OJ No L 317, 18 . 12 . 19 93 , p. 30 ) — the Court          general rules for the application of the levy referred to in
(Third Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de                     Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 ( OJ No L 90,
Almeida ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, C.                 1 . 4 . 1984, p. 13 ), as amended by Council Regulation
Gulmann and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; M. B. Elmer,                  ( EEC ) No 590/85 of 26 February 1985 amending
Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl , Principal Administrator,              Regulation (EEC ) No 857/84 ( OJ No L 68 , 8 . 3 . 1985,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January                p. 1 ), and Commission Regulation ( EEC) No 1546/88 of
1997, in which it has ruled :                                        3 June 1988 laying down detailed rules for the application
                                                                     of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of
                                                                     Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 ( OJ No L 139, 4. 6 . 1988 ,
The terms 'delivery under contract' and 'delivery ' used             p. 12 ) — The Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: J. L.
respectively in Article 10 of Commission Regulation                  Murray, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting as
(EEC) No 3478/92 of 1 December 1992 laying down                      President of the Sixth Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.
detailed rules for the application of the premium system             Kapteyn, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm,
for raw tobacco, and Article 1 of Commission Regulation              Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General;
(EC) No 3477/93 of 17 December 1993 concerning the                   D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
agricultural conversion rates to be applied in the tobacco           Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 January 1997, in
sector are to be interpreted, where the processor has                which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 3 . 97           fWl                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 74/5
The reference quantity allocated to a producer by a                  than that fixed in the .case of immediate payment, in
Member State in 1984 under the additional levy system is             default of which their vehicle will be impounded.
attached to all the land, owned or leased, which is
operated by the producer for milk production, even if part           H OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .
of the land is situated in another Member State. On expiry
of a lease, the reference quantity reverts to the lessor,
where the former lessee does not intend to continue milk
production.
H OJ No C 43 , 12. 2 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 23 January 1997
                                                                     in Case C-153/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Raad van State van Belgie ): Andre en Co. NV v.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                          Belgian State (')
                        ( Sixth Chamber)                                   (Monetary compensatory amounts — Exemption)
                      of 23 January 1997                                                        ( 97/C 74/09 )
in Case C-29/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen: Eckehard                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
         Pastoors, Trans-cap GmbH v. Belgian State (')
(Road transport — Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/
    85 and 3821/85 — Implementing national provisions)                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                           ( 97/C 74/08 )
                                                                     In Case C-153/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                       of the EC Treaty from the Raad van State, Belgium, for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                     court between Andre en Co. NV and Belgian State — on
                                                                     the interpretation of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       No 926/80 of 15 April 1980 on exemption from the
           published in the European Court Reports)                  application of monetary compensatory amounts in certain
                                                                     cases ( OJ No L 99 , 1980, p. 15 ) — the Court ( Fourth
                                                                     Chamber), composed of: C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur )
In Case C-29/95 reference to the Court under Article 177             acting as President, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm,
of the EC Treaty by the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te               Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
Antwerpen ( Belgium ) for a preliminary ruling in the                Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
proceedings pending before that court between Eckehard               23 January 1997, in which it has ruled:
Pastoors, Trans-Cap GmbH and Belgian State — on the
interpretation of Article 6 of the EC Treaty and the
general principle of equality laid down by Community law              1 . Article 8 (2) (b) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
— the Court composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of                      No 926/80 of 15 April 1980 on exemption from the
Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ),                     application of monetary compensatory amounts
P. J. G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch, Judges, Advocate-General;                 (MCAs) in certain cases is to be interpreted as
 G. Tesauro, L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,                applying also where the exported product had
has given a judgment on 23 January 1997, in which it                      previously been imported within the six months
rules :                                                                   preceding its exportation.
Article 6 of the EC Treaty precludes national legislation             2. Article 8 (2) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 926/80 is to
 adopted in implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)                    be interpreted as meaning that, in order to refuse
 No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonization                      exemption from payment of MCAs, it is sufficient for
 of certain social legislation relating to road transport and             the same product to be exported within six months
 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821 /85 of 20 December                      of its importation, irrespective of whether it was
 1985 on recording equipment in road transport which, in                  imported by the same or another trader.
 cases of infringement, imposes only on non-residents who
 opt for continuation of the normal criminal proceedings              H OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7 . 1995 .
 against them rather than for immediate payment of the
 prescribed fine the obligation to deposit a fixed sum by
 way of security in respect of each offence, which is higher


title: Case C-53/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal des Affaires de Sécurité Sociale, by judgment of that court of 11 January 2000, in the case of Ferring SA v Agence Centrale des Organismes de Sécurité Sociale — A.C.O.S.S.

text:
29.4.2000             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 122/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozial-                  undertaking B, dismisses all its staff, except for four
gericht by order of that court of 16 December 1966 in                      persons, whereupon undertaking D is awarded that con-
the case of Hasan Gevin v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit —                       tract by undertaking A, employs a proportion of the staff
                        Kindergeldkasse                                    of undertaking C under a collective labour agreement but
                                                                           takes over none of the assets of undertaking C, which latter
                         (Case C-47/00)                                    undertaking continues to exist and to pursue the objects
                                                                           for which it was incorporated?
                        (2000/C 122/20)                               2. In the event that undertaking C is held to be the transferor,
                                                                           even though it continues to exist, does the abovementioned
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     directive preclude it from being able to retain certain
European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht                   workers in its service?
(Federal Social Court), which was received at the Court Registry
on 14 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of          (1) on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
Hasan Gevin v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit — Kindergeldkasse                  to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers
(Federal Office for Employment — Child-Benefit Fund) on the               of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ 1977 L 61,
following question:                                                       p. 26).
Is Article 3(1) of Decision No 3/80 of 19 September 1980 of
the EEC-Turkey Association Council on the application of the
social security schemes of the Member States of the European
Communities to Turkish workers and members of their
families also applicable to a Turkish national who is lawfully        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal des
resident and gainfully employed in a Member State of the              Affaires de Sécurité Sociale, by judgment of that court of
European Union but entered the Member State concerned as a            11 January 2000, in the case of Ferring SA v Agence
refugee from Turkey rather than as a migrant worker or the            Centrale des Organismes de Sécurité Sociale — A.C.O.S.S.
dependant of a migrant worker, and received a work permit
only after the end of the asylum proceedings?
                                                                                (Case C-53/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 122/22)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal des
                                                                      Affaires de Sécurité Sociale (Social Security Court), Créteil, of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour du Travail             11 January 2000, which was received at the Court Registry on
(6th Chamber), Brussels, by judgment of that court of                 21 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
14 February 2000 in the case of Temco Service Industries              Ferring SA v Agence Centrale des Organismes de Sécurité
SA against Samir Imzilyen, Mimoune Belfarh, Abdesselam                Sociale — A.C.O.S.S., on the following questions:
Afia-Aroussi, and Khalil Lakhdar; intervening parties:                — Can the contribution created by Article L.245-6-1 of the
General Maintenance Contractors SPRL and Buyle-Med-                        Code de la Sécurité Sociale be regarded as a public aid
                    ros-Vaes Associates SA                                 within the meaning of Article 87 EC (ex Article 92 of the
                                                                           EC Treaty)?
                         (Case C-51/00)
                                                                           — If so, is it justified by the nature and scheme of the
                                                                               system?
                        (2000/C 122/21)
                                                                      — Are wholesale distributors entrusted with the operation of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     a service in the general economic interest within the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour du Travail                    meaning of Article 86(2) EC (ex Article 90(2) of the EC
(Higher Labour Court) (6th Chamber), Brussels, of 14 February              Treaty)?
2000, received at the Court Registry on 17 February 2000, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Temco Service Industries          — If the contribution at issue can be classified as public aid,
SA against Samir Imzilyen, Mimoune Belfarh, Abdesselam                     must it strictly offset the extra cost resulting from the
Afia-Aroussi, and Khalil Lakhdar; intervening parties: General             obligations imposed on wholesale distributors in order
Maintenance Contractors SPRL and Buyle-Medros-Vaes Associ-                 for the derogation provided for in Article 86(2) to be
ates SA, on the following questions:                                       applicable?
                                                                      — Must Article 49 EC (ex Article 59 of the EC Treaty) be
1. Does Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/187 of 14 Febru-
                                                                           interpreted as precluding national legislation of the kind
    ary 1977 (1) apply in a situation where undertaking A
                                                                           embodied in the Law of 19 December 1997?
    contracts with undertaking B for the cleaning of its indus-
    trial plants and undertaking B entrusts that work to
    undertaking C, which, following loss of the contract by