title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 2002 in Case C-99/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Gottfried Linhart v Hans Biffl (Approximation of laws — Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) — Directive 76/768/EEC relating to cosmetic products — Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising — National legislation laying down restrictions on advertising)

text:
C 323/20                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.12.2002
Article 40 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of 24 July                1.    Dismisses the appeal;
1989 laying down general rules for the description and presentation
of wines and grape musts, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)            2.    Orders Aéroports de Paris to pay the costs.
No 3897/91 of 16 December 1991, is to be interpreted as not
prohibiting the use of a trade mark which contains a geographical           (1 ) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
reference and is intended for use in connection with the sale of wine
and is likely to give the false impression that the geographical
reference is protected, unless there is a real risk that use of such a
mark will mislead consumers and, as a result, alter their economic
behaviour. It is a matter for the national court to determine whether
or not that is the case.                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                                                                                of 24 October 2002
                                                                            in Case C-99/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Gottfried Linhart v Hans
                                                                                Biffl ( 1)
                                                                            (Approximation of laws — Articles 30 and 36 of the EC
                                                                            Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            — Directive 76/768/EEC relating to cosmetic products —
                                                                            Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising —
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                   National legislation laying down restrictions on advertising)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/26)
                         of 24 October 2002
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case C-82/01 P: Aéroports de Paris v Commission of
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                  the European Communities (1)
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Appeal — Competition — Air transport — Airport man-
agement — Abuse of dominant position — Discriminatory                       In Case C-99/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                 fees)                                      by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
                                                                            ruling in the proceedings pending before that court against
                                                                            Gottfried Linhart and Hans Biffl, on the interpretation of
                           (2002/C 323/25)                                  Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                            Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) and Council Directive 76/768/EEC
                                                                            of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the
                     (Language of the case: French)                         Member States relating to cosmetic products (OJ 1976 L 262,
                                                                            p. 169), as amended by Council Directive 93/35/EEC of
                                                                            14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 151, p. 32), and Council Directive
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                            84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approxi-
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            mation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                            of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ
                                                                            1984 L 250, p. 17), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                            J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen,
In Case C-82/01 P, Aéroports de Paris (Agent: H. Calvet):                   V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of               Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 12 December                     has given a judgment on 24 October 2002, in which it has
2000 in Case T-128/98 Aéroports de Paris v Commission                       ruled:
[2000] ECR II-3929, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
the other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the               1.    Article 6(3) of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July
European Communities (Agent: L. Pignataro, assisted by                            1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
B. Geneste) and Alpha Flight Services SAS (Agents: L. Marville                    relating to cosmetic products, as amended by Council Directive
and A. Denants), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                          93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993, precludes national legislation
C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,                        which prohibits reference to expert medical opinions in the
V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues                       marketing of cosmetic products — in particular, the use of the
(Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,                      statement ‘dermatologically tested’ — if that reference does not
Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 October 2002, in which                      include information relating to the contents and outcome of
it:                                                                               those assessments.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.12.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 323/21
2.    Article 6(3) of Directive 76/768 as amended by Directive 93/          Customs Code, read in conjunction with Council Regulation (EEC)
      35 precludes national legislation which authorises the use of         No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
      information as referred to in Question 1 only on condition that       Customs Code, should be interpreted as meaning that a customs debt
      prior authorisation is granted by the competent Minister.             arising by reason of an offence or irregularity committed in connection
                                                                            with a consignment placed under the external Community transit
                                                                            procedure can be recovered from the principal by the office of departure
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                                 even if it did not notify the principal before the end of the 11th
                                                                            month following the date of registration of the Community transit
                                                                            declaration that the consignment had not been presented at the office
                                                                            of destination and that the place of the offence or irregularity could
                                                                            not be established. The same applies if the office of departure did not
                                                                            follow an administrative procedure for the transmission of infor-
                                                                            mation, such as the early warning system, or if the failure to comply
                                                                            with the time-limit was due to error or negligence on the part of that
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      office.
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                      of 14 November 2002
in Case C-112/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Vestre Landsret): SPKR 4 nr. 3482 ApS v
Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skattestyrelsen, Aktieselskab-
et af 11/9 1996, Arden Transport & Spedition ved Søren
           Lauritsen og Lene Lauritsen I/S (ATS) ( 1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Regulations (EEC) Nos 2913/92 and 2454/93 — External
Community transit — Offence or irregularity — Recovery                                               (Fourth Chamber)
                of a customs debt — Conditions)
                          (2002/C 323/27)                                                          of 7 November 2002
                   (Language of the case: Danish)                                       in Case C-184/01 P: Peter Hirschfeldt (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      (Appeal — Officials — Internal competition — Cancellation
                   in the European Court Reports)                           — Transfer — Promotion — Article 8 of the Staff Regu-
                                                                                lations)
In Case C-112/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                                            (2002/C 323/28)
EC by the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between SPKR 4
nr. 3482 ApS and Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skattestyrelsen,                                   (Language of the case: French)
Aktieselskabet af 11/9 1996, Arden Transport & Spedition
ved Søren Lauritsen og Lene Lauritsen I/S (ATS), on the
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code                                        in the European Court Reports)
(OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), and Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ
1993 L 253, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                            In Case C-184/01 P, Peter Hirschfeldt (Agents: J.-N. Louis and
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,
V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),                V. Peere): Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of
                                                                            13 February 2001 in Case T-166/00 Hirschfeldt v EEA [2001]
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 November 2002, in
which it has ruled:                                                         ECR-SC I-A-41 and II-157, seeking to have that judgment set
                                                                            aside and the claims at first instance allowed, the other party
                                                                            to the proceedings being: European Environment Agency,
Article 379(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of                 represented by J.-L. Salazar and J. Rivière, acting as Agents,
2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of                assisted by D. Waelbroeck, avocat, with an address for service
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community              in Luxembourg, the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:


C 314/6               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  30.10.1999
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                       Removal from the register of Case C-259/98 (1)
the Court should:
                                                                                (1999/C 314/13)
1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
    administrative measures necessary in order to comply with         By order of 29 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
    Council Directive 94/67/EC of 16 December 1994 on the             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
    incineration of hazardous waste (1), or in any event to           the register of Case C-259/98: Commission of the European
    communicate the same to the Commission, the Kingdom               Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
    of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
    directive;
                                                                      (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Article 249 EC (formerly Article 189 of the EC Treaty),
according to which a directive is to be binding, as to the result            Removal from the register of Case C-64/99 (1)
to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is
addressed, requires Member States to observe the time-limits                                  (1999/C 314/14)
laid down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit
in the present case expired on 31 December 1996 without the           By order of 1 July 1999 the President of the Court of Justice of
Kingdom of Belgium having brought into force the necessary            the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
provisions in order to comply with the directive referred to in       register of Case C-64/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
the Commission’s application.                                         from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
                                                                      Bench Division (Commercial Court): Pace Airline Services Ltd
(1) OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 34.                                    v Aerotrans Luftfahrtagentur GmbH.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-182/96 (1)
                        (1999/C 314/12)                                      Removal from the register of Case C-406/95 (1)
By order of 22 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice                                (1999/C 314/15)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-182/96: Federal Republic of Germany v          By order of 8 July 1999 the President of the Sixth Chamber of
Commission of the European Communities.                               the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered
                                                                      the removal from the register of Case C-406/95: Italian
(1) OJ C 210 of 20.7.1996.                                            Republic v Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 46 of 17.2.1996.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 June 2002 in Case C-382/99: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Commission notice on the de minimis rule for State aid — Service stations — Excise duties — Likelihood of overlapping aid — Legitimate expectations — Principle of legal certainty — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
27.7.2002               EN                           Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 180/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       of: S. von Bahr, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting as
                                                                             President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and M. Wathe-
                                                                             let, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                    Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 June
                                                                             2002, in which it:
                          of 13 June 2002                                    1.    dismisses the application;
                                                                             2.    orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
in Case C-382/99: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
(State aid — Commission notice on the de minimis rule for
State aid — Service stations — Excise duties — Likelihood
of overlapping aid — Legitimate expectations — Principle
       of legal certainty — Obligation to state reasons)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (2002/C 180/01)                                                             (Sixth Chamber)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                      of 13 June 2002
                                                                             In Joined Cases C-430/99 and C-431/99 (Reference for a
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       preliminary ruling from the Raad van State): Inspecteur
                   in the European Court Reports)                            van de Belastingdienst Douane, Rotterdam district v Sea-
                                                                             Land Service Inc. (C-430/99), Nedlloyd Lijnen BV (C-431/
                                                                                99) (1)
                                                                             (Maritime transport — Freedom to provide services — Vessel
In Case C-382/99: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:                                              traffic services system)
M. Fierstra) v Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: G. Rozet and H. M. H. Speyart, assisted by J. C. M. van                                        (2002/C 180/02)
der Beek, and L. Hancher) — application for partial annulment
of Commission’s decision 1999/705/EC of 20 July 1999                                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
concerning State aid granted by the Netherlands with regard
to 633 Netherlands petrol stations in the region bordering
Germany (OJ 1999 L 280, p. 87), in so far as it finds that the               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
subsidies granted to certain categories of service station                                      in the European Court Reports)
are incompatible with the common market and with the
functioning of the Agreement on the European Economic Area
of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3) and orders recovery of the                 In Joined Cases C-430/99 and C-431/99: Reference to the
aid already granted — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                    Court under Article 234 EC by the Raad van State, Netherlands,


title: Case C-458/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Construction sector — Authorisation required in order to carry on activity in that sector — Justification)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-458/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Infringement of Article 49 EC - Construction sector - Authorisation required in order to carry on activity in that sector - Justification)
   2011/C 13/03
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Traversa and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and F. Nunes dos Santos, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by M. Dowgielewicz, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Construction sector — Licence required in order to carry on activity in that sector

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by requiring providers of building services established in another Member State to satisfy all the requirements imposed by the national scheme at issue, and in particular by Decree-Law No 12/2004 of 9 January 2004, in order to obtain authorisation to exercise, in Portugal, an activity in the construction sector, thereby precluding the possibility of account being duly taken of equivalent obligations to which such providers are subject in the Member State in which they are established, or of the verifications already carried out in that regard by the authorities of that Member State, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


Notice of open competition CJ/LA/21


title: Case C-281/08 P: Appeal brought on 27 June 2008 by Landtag Schleswig-Holstein against the order lodged on 3 April 2008 by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-236/06, Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/5

         Appeal brought on 27 June 2008 by Landtag Schleswig-Holstein against the order lodged on 3 April 2008 by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-236/06, Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-281/08 P)
   (2008/C 260/06)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Landtag Schleswig-Holstein (represented by: S. Laskowski and J. Caspar, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare the appeal to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul the order of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2008;

               —

               uphold the appellant's application at first instance and declare the application in Case T-236/06 to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance, for the latter to admit the original application and the prior proceedings to be continued;

               —

               rule on costs and order the Commission to pay all of the costs of the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Court of First Instance rejected as inadmissible the appellant's application for annulment brought against the Commission of the European Communities on the ground that the appellant is not a legal person within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC. The application for annulment was brought against the Commission decisions of 10 March 2006 and 23 June 2006, by which the appellant was refused access to document SEK(2005) 420 containing a legal analysis of a draft framework decision, under discussion in the Council, on the retention of data for purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of crime and criminal offences, including terrorism.
   The appellant bases its appeal against the contested order of the Court of First Instance on two grounds.

      First, it alleges that the Court of First Instance infringed the audi alteram partem rule in judicial proceedings. This principle is designed, inter alia, as an expression of the guarantee of a fair hearing and effective legal protection, to prevent judicial decisions from being potentially influenced by arguments which the parties have not been given the opportunity to discuss. As a result, a decision causing surprise to the parties should be avoided. In order to avoid a judgment of such a kind, the Court of First Instance should have given the appellant the opportunity to obtain clarification.

      Secondly, the appellant submits that Court of First Instance infringed Community law by misinterpreting the constituent element ‘legal person’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, and erred in law by denying the status of legal person, and, in consequence, locus standi to the appellant.
   The Court of First Instance proceeded on the basis that the President of the Schleswig-Holstein Landtag (Land Parliament) represents, in the context of his powers as legal representative, not the appellant, but rather ‘the Land directly’, as a result of which it concluded that the appellant does not have legal capacity and thus also does not have locus standi before the Community Courts. It can be deduced from this that the Court of First Instance would have regarded the application as admissible had it been brought by the ‘Land Schleswig-Holstein’ rather than by the appellant. This view is not only incorrect in law, inasmuch as it is at odds with the Constitution of the Land of Schleswig-Holstein, but also inasmuch as it constitutes, in the appellant's view, a surprising decision which the latter should not have had to expect. The order of the Court of First Instance is wrong in law, first, because it failed to recognise that the Landtag is, according to the Constitution of the Land of Schleswig-Holstein, the ‘highest body of political aspiration elected by the people’, and, secondly, because the Court of First Instance did not realise that the President of the Landtag represents the Landtag in its entirety with regard to constitutional disputes affecting it. The term ‘Land’ is used, legally, in an extensive and non-specific way, and may refer, depending on the legal context, to both the Land Government and the Land Parliament.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 November 2003 in Case C-434/01: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild fauna and flora)

text:
10.1.2004              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 7/15
Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet                 teur), F. Macken, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
and F. Macken, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von                  A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 Nov-                 judgment on 6 November 2003, in which it:
ember 2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the action.
1.   If, in the exercise of its power of administrative review of a
     merger of undertakings, the competent authority of a Member
     State deems it necessary to redistribute sugar production quotas       2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
     among undertakings situated in its territory in order to                     the costs.
     safeguard competition, the provisions of Council Regulation
     (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common
     organisation of the markets in the sugar sector and Council            (1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
     Regulation (EEC) No 193/82 of 26 January 1982 laying
     down general rules for transfers of quotas in the sugar sector
     preclude that authority from stipulating that such a transfer or
     reallocation of quotas should be for value.
2.   The entry into force of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/
     2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the
     markets in the sugar sector does not alter the interpretation of
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     Community law.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
                                                                                of 6 November 2003
                                                                            in Case C-501/01: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            (Commission Decision 2001/739/EC of 17 October 2001 on
                                                                            the total amount of Community aid for the eradication of
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                classical swine fever in the Netherlands in 1998)
                      of 6 November 2003
                                                                                (2004/C 7/25)
in Case C-434/01: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
                             Ireland (1)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                                   in the European Court Reports)
92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild
                          fauna and flora)
                           (2004/C 7/24)                                    In Case C-501/01, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
                                                                            H. G. Sevenster, C. Wissels and J. G. M. van Bakel) v
                   (Language of the case: English)                          Commission of the European Communities (Agent: T. van
                                                                            Rijn): Application for annulment of Commission Decision
                                                                            2001/739/EC of 17 October 2001 on the total amount of
                                                                            Community aid for the eradication of classical swine fever in
In Case C-434/01, Commission of the European Communities                    the Netherlands in 1998 (OJ 2001 L 277, p. 28), in so far as
(Agent: R. Wainwright) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and                the determination of the total amount of Community financial
Northern Ireland (Agents: G. Amodeo and K. Manji, assisted                  aid for the eradication of classical swine fever in the Nether-
by D. Anderson): Application for a declaration that, by not                 lands in 1998 provides for a reduction of 25 % of the
ensuring observance in its territory of Articles 12 and 16                  compensation paid to farmers, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the                        composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Fourth
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora                Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,
(OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), the United Kingdom of Great Britain                  D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-
and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under             Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-
that directive, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-                 trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 November
P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rappor-                2003, in which it:


title: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 November 2002 in Case C-360/01: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union (Sugar — Pricing system — Marketing year 2001/2002 — Regionalisation — Non-deficit areas — Classification of Italy — Validity of Regulations (EC) Nos 1263/2001 and 1260/2001 — Action for annulment — Manifestly inadmissible in part)

text:
22.2.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 44/11
2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                                     ORDER OF THE COURT
      Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
                                                                                of 21 November 2002
                                                                             in Case C-360/01: Italian Republic v Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities and Council of the European
                                                                                Union ( 1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (First Chamber)                                   (Sugar — Pricing system — Marketing year 2001/2002 —
                                                                             Regionalisation — Non-deficit areas — Classification of
                                                                             Italy — Validity of Regulations (EC) Nos 1263/2001 and
                         of 16 January 2003                                  1260/2001 — Action for annulment — Manifestly inadmis-
                                                                                sible in part)
in Case C-122/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                  ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/21)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                to transpose Directive 98/83/EC)                                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                           (2003/C 44/20)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-360/01, Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, and G de
                                                                             Bellis) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: C.
                                                                             Cattabriga) and Council of the European Union (Agent:
In Case C-122/02, Commission of the European Communities                     F. P. Ruggeri Laderchi) — application for the annulment of
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda) v Kingdom of Belgium                 Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1263/2001 fixing
(Agent: A. Snoecx): Application for a declaration that, by                   the derived intervention prices for white sugar for the 2001/
failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative                02 marketing year (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 60), in so far as it fails
provisions necessary to comply fully with Council Directive                  to fix derived intervention prices for white sugar for all the
98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water                          areas of Italy and, in so far as necessary, the annulment of
intended for human consumption (OJ 1998 L 330, p. 32) or,                    Article 2(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of
at any rate, by failing fully to inform the Commission thereof,              19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in
the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations                  the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1) — the Court
under that directive, the Court (First Chamber), composed of:                (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (President of
M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas                  Chamber), R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris and N. Col-
(Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                       neric (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January 2003,                R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 November 2002,
in which it:                                                                 the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and       1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible inas-
      administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Council             much as it is directed against the Council.
      Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of
      water intended for human consumption, the Kingdom of
      Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;     2.    The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs relating to that
                                                                                part of the application.
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court, by order of that court of 15 October 1998, in the case of Commissioners of Customs and Excise against Mirror Group plc. (Case C-409/98)

text:
23.1.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 20/17
Arcosu Srl    against Regione Autonoma della Sardegna,              2. If the answer to the questions at (1) above leads to the
Organismo     Comprensoriale No 24 della Sardegna and                   conclusion that the carnet holder has not failed to
ERSAT Ð       Ente Regionale per l'Assistenza Tecnica in                comply with the time-limit for proving the actual place
Agricoltura  on the following questions:                                where the offence or irregularity was committed:
(1) Despite the silence of the Italian legislature, is it in
     any event possible to apply the Community                          What are the requirements for furnishing satisfactory
     provisions in question to persons other than natural               proof of the place where the offence or irregularity
     persons, and in particular to companies having legal               was actually committed in the course of a transport
     personality?                                                       operation carried out under cover of a TIR carnet
                                                                        (first subparagraph of Article 454(3) of Commission
(2) If an affirmative answer is given to the first question,            Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93)? May a statement by
     what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for               the carnet holder and the testimony of the lorry driver
     conferring the status of farmers practising farming as             who has effected the transport for the carnet holder be
     their main occupation on persons other than natural                sufficient proof, or can proof only be provided by
     persons and, in particular, on companies with legal                documents which unambiguously show that the
     personality?                                                       competent authorities of the other Member State have
                                                                        found that the offence or irregularity was committed
                                                                        on their territory?
(1) OJ L 93, 30.3.1985, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 218, 6.8.1991, p. 1.
                                                                    3. If the Court of Justice considers that proof of the
                                                                        actual place where the offence or irregularity was
                                                                        committed was provided in due time, and considers it
                                                                        permissible to adduce such proof in the manner
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-                     described:
finanzhof by order of that court of 6 October 1998 in the
case of Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg v. SAGPOL s.c.
        Transport MicËdzynarodowy i Spedycja (PL)                       Are the third and fourth subparagraphs of
                       (Case C-406/98)                                  Article 454(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 to be
                                                                        interpreted as meaning that they also apply in cases
                        (1999/C 20/27)
                                                                        where the duties were recovered in the Member State
                                                                        where the offence or irregularity was detected, even
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                      though it has been proved within the period prescribed
the European Communities by an order of the                             by the first subparagraph of Article 454(3) and by
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 6 October                    Article 455(1) of Regulation No 2454/93 that the
1998, which was received at the Court Registry on                       offence or irregularity was actually committed in
16 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of               another Member State?
Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg v. SAGPOL s.c. Transport
MicËdzynarodowy i Spedycja (PL) on the following
questions:
1. Is it compatible with the first subparagraph of
    Article 454(3) and with Article 455(1) of Commission
    Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
    for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)              Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division,
    No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs                   Divisional Court, by order of that court of 15 October
    Code (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1) if, where a                   1998, in the case of Commissioners of Customs and
    consignment which has been cleared for the external                           Excise against Mirror Group plc.
    transit procedure under a TIR carnet is not produced
    at the destination, the customs authorities of the                                    (Case C-409/98)
    Member State of dispatch set the carnet holder a
                                                                                (1999/C 20/28)
    preclusive period of three months in which to provide
    satisfactory proof of the actual place where the offence
    or irregularity was committed, with the consequence
    that proof which is produced later leaves unaffected            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    the competence of the Member State of dispatch to               European Communities by an order of the High Court of
    recover the duties?                                             Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division,
                                                                    Divisional Court, of 15 October 1998, which was received
    If the above question is answered in the negative:              at the Court Registry on 17 November 1998, for a
    Within what period may the carnet holder prove the              preliminary ruling in the case of Commissioners of
    actual place where the offence or irregularity has been         Customs and Excise against Mirror Group plc, on the
    committed?                                                      following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 20/18                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  23.1.1999
1. Following the decision of the Court in Case C-63/92                Court), Luxembourg, of 7 October 1998, which was
     (Lubbock Fine & Co v. Commissioners of Customs                   received at the Court Registry on 18 November 1998, for
     and Excise), does Article 13(B)(b) of EC Council                 a preliminary ruling in the case of Angelo Ferlini v. Centre
     Directive 77/388/EEC (1) exempt from VAT a supply                Hospitalier de Luxembourg, on the following question:
     made by a person (the person') who does not initially
     have any interest in the immoveable property, where
     that person enters into an agreement for lease of that
     immovable property with a landlord and/or accepts                Having regard to the principle of non-discrimination
     the grant of a lease by the landlord in return for a sum         between nationals of Member States of the European
     of money paid by the landlord?                                   Union, a principle embodied in Articles 6 and 48 of the
                                                                      EC Treaty and, as regards freedom of movement for
                                                                      workers within the Community, in Regulation (EEC)
                                                                      No 1612/68 (1) of the Council of 15 October 1968
                                                                      freedom of movement for workers within the Community,
2. Following the decision of the Court in Case C-63/92                as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 312/76 of
     (Lubbock Fine & Co v. Commissioners of Customs                   9 February 1976 and, as regards social security, in
     and Excise), does Article 13(B)(b) of EC Council                 Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (2) of the Council of 14 June
     Directive 77/388/EEC exempt from VAT a supply                    1971 on the application of social security schemes to
     made by a person (the person') who does not initially           employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
     have any interest in the immovable property, where               members of their families, as amended and updated by
     that person:                                                     Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 (3) of 2 June 1983,
     (a) enters into an option agreement in relation to               and
          leases of that immovable property in return for a
          sum of money being paid to the person, on terms
          that the money will remain in a special account as
          security for its obligations under the option               having regard to Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty which
          agreement; and/or                                           prohibits all agreements between undertakings, decisions
                                                                      by associations of undertakings and concerted practices
                                                                      which may affect trade between Member States and which
                                                                      have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or
     (b) subsequently exercises the options under the                 distortion of competition within the common market,
          option agreement and accepts the grant of leases
          of the immovable property in return for the
          release of the money in the special account to the
          person?                                                     are the Grand-Ducal Regulation of 31 December 1974
                                                                      (MeÂmorial A, No 95 of 31 December 1974, p. 2398), as
                                                                      amended, whose purpose is to determine, in
(1) Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                implementation of Articles 6 and 13 of the Code des
    harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to        Assurance Sociales, benefits in kind in the event of illness
    turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:                and maternity, the scales of hospital fees as from 1 January
    uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).          1989 which are to apply to persons and organisations not
                                                                      affiliated to the national social security scheme, and the
                                                                      UCM (4) circular of 1 December 1988 on the
                                                                      apportionment of the components of flat-rate childbirth
                                                                      charges as from 1 January 1989 and the practices of the
                                                                      EHL (5), whereby it applies to persons and organisations
                                                                      not affiliated to the national social security scheme and to
                                                                      officials of the European Communities affiliated to the
                                                                      Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme uniform scales of fees for
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Eighth Chamber              medical and hospital expenses which are higher than those
of the Tribunal d'Arrondissement, Luxembourg, by order                applied to residents affiliated to the national social
of that court of 7 October 1998 in the case of Angelo                 security scheme, compatible with Community law?
         Ferlini v. Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg
                        (Case C-411/98)                               (1 ) OJ English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475.
                                                                      (2 ) OJ English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416.
                         (1999/C 20/29)                               (3 ) OJ L 230, 22.8.1983, p. 6.
                                                                      (4 ) Union des Caisses de Maladie (Luxembourgeoise)
                                                                           [Luxembourg Association of Sicknes Funds].
                                                                      (5) Entente des Hôpitaux Luxembourgeois [Luxembourg
                                                                           Hospitals Group].
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Eighth
Chamber of the Tribunal d'Arrondissement (District


title: Case C-217/06: Action brought on  12 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/21

         Action brought on 12 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-217/06)
   (2006/C 178/33)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, agent, M. Mollica, lawyer)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, as the commune of Stintino awarded directly to Maresar, through Agreement No 7/91 of 2 October 1991 and connected measures, a public works contract concerning the execution of the works mentioned in Resolution No 48 of the municipal council of Stintino of 14 December 1989, particularly the 'detailed design and construction of the works for the technological and structural adaptation, rehauling and completion of the water supply and drainage networks, the road network, the buildings and service facilities in the town centre, the tourist areas in and outside the territory of the commune of Stintino, including the clean-up and depollution of the coast and the tourist centres situated in that commune', without following the procedures laid down by Council Directive 71/305/EEC (1) and, in particular, without publishing a notice of invitation to tender in the Official Journal of the European Communities, the Commission of the European Communities considers that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 71/305/EEC, which co-ordinates the procedures for the award of public works contracts, in particular under Articles 3 and 12 thereof.

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission considers that the Agreement of 2 October 1991 between the commune of Stintino and Maresar is a public works contract under Community law. The said contract, the subject of which is works with a value (around EUR 16 million) clearly greater than the threshold for the application of the Directive, which was in force at that time, should have been awarded in accordance with the rules laid down by that Directive.
   As regards the Italian authority's arguments put forward to justify their non-fulfilment, the Commission recalls that, in accordance with settled case-law, a Member State cannot rely on internal difficulties to justify failure to fulfil obligations derived from Community law.

      (1)  OJ L 185, p. 5.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce, Lyon, by judgment of that court of 2 January 1995, rectified by judgment of 7 February 1995, in the case of Fontaine SA and Others v. Aqueducs Automobiles Sarl (Case C-128/95)

text:
No C 159/ 18            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24 . 6 . 95
     of law, or where such appeal may be only in respect of               module' for the assembly of a data-processing machine,
     the legal validity of the decision, or where the appeal              consisting of a housing with inter alia two disk-drives, as
     cannot have suspensory effect') apply equally to                     described in more detail in the grounds of the reference,
     Article 9 ( 2 )?                                                     is to be classified in subheading No 8471 93 59 either
                                                                          directly or pursuant to General Rule 3b as a ' storage
4 . Where a decision has been taken to exclude a                          unit', on the basis of the drives it contains ?
     Community national from the territory of a Member
     State other than his own on public policy or public              2.  If not :
     security grounds and the Community national has left
     that territory without there having been an appeal or                Is it correct to classify a product such as that described
     reference for an advisory opinion to an independent                  above as a 'part' ( of a data-processing machine ) under
     competent authority pursuant to Articles 8 or 9 of                   subheading No 8473 30 90 of the customs tariff
     Directive 64/22 1 /EEC, does that Community national                 provisions ?
     have a right of reference to an independent competent
     authority under Article 9 ( 2 ) if that national
     subsequently returns or seeks to return to the territory of
     the Member State CQncerned, in respect of:
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad
     ( a ) the refusal of an application for a residence permit;      van Beroep by order of that court of 9 December 1994 in the
           or                                                         case of A. Hallouzi-Choho v. Bestuur van de Sociale
                                                                                Verzekeringsbank
     ( b ) the refusal of an application for entry; or
                                                                                ( Case C-126/95 )
     ( c ) a decision ordering expulsion ?                                                       ( 95/C 159/35 )
5 . Do the answers to question 4 vary according to                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     whether :                                                        European Communities by an order of the Centrale Raad
                                                                      van Beroep ( Court of last instance in social security matters )
     ( a ) the applicant has entered the territory of the             of 9 December 1994, which was received at the Court
           Member State before asking for a residence                 Registry on 13 April 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the
           permit;                                                    case of A. Hallouzi-Choho v . Bestuur van de Sociale
                                                                      Verzekeringsbank ( Board of the Social Insurance Bank ) on
     ( b ) the applicant has been expelled from the Member            the following question:
           State before he has asked for a residence permit, or
           has never asked for a residence permit;                    Should Article 41 ( 1 ) of the Cooperation Agreement
                                                                      between the EC and Morocco be interpreted as precluding
     ( c ) the earlier departure was as a result of a decision
           ordering expulsion, or of a threat of detention and
                                                                      imposing the requirement of Netherlands nationality on the
           expulsion and was followed by a decision to
                                                                      spouse — a member of the family within the meaning of
           exclude ?                                                  Article 41 ( 1 ) of the Agreement — of a Moroccan worker in
                                                                      order to obtain entitlement to transitional benefits within
                                                                      the meaning of the Netherlands Algemene Ouderdomswet
(M OJ No L 56 , 4 . 4 . 1964 , p. 850 .
                                                                      ( Law on Old Age )?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 16 March                    Commerce, Lyon, by judgment of that court of 2 January
1995 in the case of Vobis Microcomputer AG v.                         1995 , rectified by judgment of 7 February 1995 , in the case
                 Oberfinanzdirektion Miinchen                         of Fontaine SA and Others v. Aqueducs Automobiles
                         ( Case C-121/95 )                                                             Sari
                           ( 95/C 159/34 )                                                     ( Case C-128/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/36 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Seventh Senate of                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of 16 March             European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on 10 April           Commerce ( Commercial Court), Lyon, of 2 January 1995 ,
1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Vobis                  rectified by judgment of 7 February 1995 , which was
Microcomputer AG v . Oberfinanzdirektion Miinchen                     received at the Court Registry on 18 April 1995 , for a
( Principal Revenue Office, Munich ) on the following                 preliminary ruling in the case of 1 . Fontaine SA, 2 . Garage
questions :                                                           Laval SA, 3 . Fahy SA, 4 . Renault Lyon Ouest FLB
                                                                      Automobiles SA, 5 . Société de Diffusion Vallis Auto SA —
1 . Is the Common Customs Tariff (combined                            SDV, 6 . Horizon Sud SA v. Aqueducs Automobiles Sari on
     nomenclature ) to be interpreted as meaning that a 'basic        the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- 24 . 6 . 95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 159/19
1 . Is there a prohibition of parallel imports otherwise than          4 . In the event that suspension of the implementation of
     on the basis of an authority given to an agent who is a               the decision is granted, is security still to be lodged to the
     provider of services and consequently by a purchase and               extent of the amount of the duty or does the possibility
     resale transaction ?                                                  exist of limiting it to a partial amount having regard to
                                                                           applicant's overall economic situation ?
2 . Is an independent dealer prohibited from acting as a
     provider of services as a free agent, and at the same time        (!) OJ No L 302 , 19 . 10 . 1992 , p . 1 .
     as a dealer inter alia carrying out parallel imports ?
3 . Is an independent dealer prohibited from selling new               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse
     vehicles and, in any case, what is the definition of 'new         Raad van State by judgment of that court of 25 October
     vehicle ' and ' second-hand vehicle '?
                                                                       1994 in the case of P. J. Huijbrechts v. Commissie voor de
                                                                       Behandeling van Administratieve Geschillen ingevolge
                                                                       Artikel 41 der Algemene Bijstandswet in de Provincie
                                                                                Noord-Brabant
                                                                                ( Case C-131/95 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches                                           ( 95/C 159/38 )
Finanzgericht by order of that court of 31 March 1995 in the
case of Bernd Emil Giloy v. Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                            Main — Ost                                 European Communities by a judgment of the Nederlandse
                                                                       Raad van State ( State Council of the Netherlands ) of
                         ( Case C-130/95 )
                                                                       25 October 1994 , which was received at the Court Registry
                           ( 95/C 159/37 )                             on 21 April 1 995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of P. J.
                                                                       Huijbrechts v. Commissie voor de Behandeling van
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 Administratieve Geschillen ingevolge Artikel 41 der
European Communities by an order of the Hessisches                     Algemene Bijstandswet in de Provincie Noord-Brabant
Finanzgericht ( Finance Court, Hesse ) of 31 March 1995 ,              ( Administrative Appeals Board for Disputes under
which was received at the Court Registry on 21 April 1 995 ,           Article 41 of the General Law on Assistance ), on the
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bernd Emil Giloy v.            following questions :
Hauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office ) Frankfurt am
Main — Ost on the following questions :                                1 . In the event that a Member State causes the grant of a
                                                                           benefit following on from an unemployment benefit, as
                                                                           in the case of Article 2 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( 3 ) of the Wet
1 . Are the two conditions set out in the second paragraph                 Inkomensvoorziening           Oudere       en     Gedeeltelijk
     of Article 244 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92               Arbeidsongeschickte Werklose Werknemers ( Law on
     of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community                         the Provision of Income for Elderly Unemployed
     Customs Code ( J ) ('the Customs Code '), namely:                     Workers and Unemployed Workers suffering from
                                                                           Partial Incapacity to Work, 'the IOAW'), to depend on
     — good reason to believe that the disputed decision is
                                                                           the requirement that benefit must have been received
          unlawful, or
                                                                           under the statutory unemployment provisions in force in
     — irreparable damage for the person concerned,                        the Member State during the whole period for which
                                                                           benefit was payable, should , as a result of Article 67 of
     completely independent of each other, with the result                 Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 on the application of
     that suspension of the implementation of a decision is                social security schemes to employed persons, to
     also to be granted where there is no good reason to                   self-employed persons and to members of their families
     believe that the payment order whose implementation is                moving within the Community ( in the consolidated
     sought to be suspended is unlawful but irreparable                    version set out in Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001/83 i 1 )) the
     damage is to be feared for the person concerned ?                     periods during which unemployment benefit was
                                                                           received in another Member State be regarded as periods
     If question 1 is answered in the affirmative :                        of insurance or of employment ?
                                                                       2 . If not, does the fact that, in assessing whether a
2 . Does the presence of the condition mentioned in the                    requirement laid down in Article 2 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( 3 ) of the
     second indent inevitably preclude a requirement to                    IOAW to the effect that benefit must have been received
     lodge security or is this subject to further conditions and,          during the whole period for which benefit was payable
     if so, which ?                                                        under the statutory provisions on unemployment in
                                                                           force in the competent Member State is satisfied, no
3 . Does the danger of losing one's employment — which                     account is taken of unemployment benefit received in
     may have possibly already materialized on account of                  another Member State constitute discrimination on
     the claim for duty having become due — constitute                     grounds of nationality within the meaning of Article 7 of
     ' serious economic or social difficulties ' even where the            the EEC Treaty (now Article 6 of the EC Treaty )?
     necessary minimum for subsistence is secured as a result
     of domestic legislation, for instance by social                   H OJ No L 230 , 22 . 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .
     welfare ?


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 12 October 2000 in Case T-202/00 R: Mario Costacurta v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Interlocutory proceedings — Admissibility of the main proceedings)

text:
C 355/24                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        9.12.2000
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                             INSTANCE                                                                  INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 October 2000
                           of 25 July 2000
                                                                           in Case T-202/00 R: Mario Costacurta v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
in Case T-189/00 R: ‘Invest’ Import und Export GmbH
and Invest Commerce S.à r.l. v Commission of the
                      European Communities                                 (Officials — Interlocutory proceedings — Admissibility of
                                                                                the main proceedings)
(Procedure for interim relief — Freeze of funds and ban on                                           (2000/C 355/54)
investment in relation to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
— Regulation (EC) No 1147/2000 — Suspension of oper-
         ation until the end of the interim proceedings)                                        (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-202/00 R: Mario Costacurta, official of the Com-
                          (2000/C 355/53)                                  mission of the European Communities, residing in Luxem-
                                                                           bourg, represented by Mr Petit, of the Luxembourg Bar, with
                                                                           an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr
                                                                           Petit, 74, Val Sainte-Croix, against the Commission of the
                    (Language of the case: German)                         European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) —
                                                                           application for, first, suspension of the decision of the
                                                                           Commission contained in its letter dated 19 July 2000 and,
In Case T-189/00 R: ‘Invest’ Import und Export GmbH,                       secondly, an order of the Court requiring the Commission to
established in Neuss (Germany) and Invest Commerce S.à r.l.,               post the applicant to a third country by 1 September 2000 at
established in Alfortville (France), represented by R. Wägen-              the latest — the President of the Court of First Instance made
baur, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                  an order on 12 October 2000, the operative part of which is
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8-10                   as follows:
Rue Mathias Hardt, against the Commission of the European
Communities — application pursuant to Article 105(2) of                    1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
the Rules of Procedure for suspension of the operation of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1147/2000 of 29 May 2000                     2.    Costs are reserved.
amending Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1294/1999
concerning a freeze of funds and a ban on investment in
relation to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (OJ 2000 L 129,
p. 15) in so far as it concerns the applicants — the President
of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance made an
order on 25 July 2000, the operative part of which is as
follows:
                                                                           ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
1.    Until the adoption of the order terminating the present
      proceedings for interim relief, operation of Commission Regu-
                                                                                of 12 October 2000
      lation (EC) No 1147/2000 of 29 May 2000 amending
      Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1294/1999 concern-
      ing a freeze of funds and a ban on investment in relation to the     in Case T-208/00 R: Jeremı́as Augusto Barleycorn Mongol-
      Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is suspended in relation to the       ue and Marc Boixader Rivas v Council of the European
      applicants, to the extent that the Commission is required to                         Union and European Parliament
      grant without delay an authorisation for each import and
      export operation notified to it by the applicants — without          (Proceedings for interim relief — Notice of competition —
      complying with the procedure under Article 9 of Regulation                  Officials — Admissibility — Urgency — None)
      No 1294/1999, as amended by Regulation No 723/2000
      — and the applicants may, notwithstanding Article 3(1) of
      that regulation, have at their disposal the funds necessary for                                (2000/C 355/55)
      each of the corresponding operations.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
2.    Costs are reserved.
                                                                           In Case T-208/00 R: Jeremı́as Augusto Barleycorn Mongolue
                                                                           and Marc Boixader Rivas, residing in Madrid, represented by
                                                                           D. López Garrido of the Madrid bar, with an address for service
                                                                           in Luxembourg at the Chambers of J. Choucroun, 84 Grand-


title: Case C-298/01: Action brought on 26 July 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 289/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13.10.2001
Action brought on 26 July 2001 by the Commission of                      The financial supervision of an insurance undertaking pursuant
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                    to Article 13(1), as amended by Article 9 of Directive
                           of Germany                                    92/49/EEC, including that of the business it carries on either
                                                                         through branches or under the freedom to provide services, is
                                                                         the sole responsibility of the home Member State. Conse-
                         (Case C-298/01)                                 quently, the host Member State (in this case Germany) is in
                                                                         particular not entitled to subject insurance undertakings
                                                                         operating under the freedom to provide services or through
                         (2001/C 289/27)                                 branches to requirements which go beyond those linked to the
                                                                         authorisation by the home Member State and encroach
                                                                         upon the competence of that State with regard to financial
                                                                         supervision, for example the requirement to use premiums or
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                    parts thereof in a quite specific way.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 26 July 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Gerald Braun, of its Legal Service,          (1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992, p. 1.
and Christina Tufvesson, Commission Legal Adviser, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar
Guerrero, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1.    declare that, by adopting and retaining Para-                      Action brought on 26 July 2001 by the Commission of
      graph 257(2a)(5) of the Fifth Book of the Sozialgesetz-            the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
      buch (Code of Social Law), in the version at BGBl (Federal                                   Luxembourg
      Official Journal) 1999 I, p. 2626, the Federal Republic of
      Germany is failing to fulfil its obligations under the EC                                  (Case C-299/01)
      Treaty and Council Directive 92/49/EEC (1) of 18 June
      1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions relating to direct insurance                                     (2001/C 289/28)
      other than life assurance and amending Directives
      73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance
      Directive), in particular Articles 5, 9(1) and (2) and 54(1)       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
      and (2);                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties on 26 July 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by H. Michard, acting as Agent,
2.    order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         —     Declare that, by maintaining a condition relating to
                                                                               duration of residence in Luxembourg for the granting of
                                                                               a guaranteed minimum income, the Grand Duchy of
In the Commission’s view, the system chosen by the Federal                     Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Republic of Germany under which an employer’s subsidy                          Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the
towards certain employees’ private health insurance is made                    Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement
conditional on the insurance undertaking (i) not engaging in                   for workers within the Community (1) and Article 43 of
health insurance together with other classes of insurance or                   the EC Treaty; and
(ii) using the part of the premiums in respect of which
employees receive a subsidy for health insurance only is                 —     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
contrary to the requirement of mutual recognition of con-
ditions of access and to the system of supervision introduced
by Directive 92/49/EEC. The requirements in Para-
graph 257(2a)(5) of the Fifth Book of the Code of Social Law
are designed to replace actual control, under which health               Pleas in law and main arguments
insurance and other classes of insurance were previously
separated, with a provision which in essence retains the
former rule, thus has the same practical consequences and,               The Commission takes the view that entitlement to a guaran-
furthermore, is contrary to the Third Non-Life Insurance                 teed minimum income constitutes a social advantage within
Directive.                                                               the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2002 in Case C-211/00 P: Ciments Français SA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Competition — Cement — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now, Article 81(1) EC) — Appeal in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
C 191/10                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.8.2002
1.    The second ground of appeal is dismissed in its entirety as in               —     the second, third and seventh heads of the fourth plea in
      part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.                     law,
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                          with the exception, as regards the fourteenth head of the third
                                                                                plea in law and the third head of the fourth plea in law, of the
                                                                                arguments based on the Court of First Instance’s assessment of
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                         the overall responsibility of the undertakings involved in the
                                                                                single infringement;
                                                                             2.    Costs are reserved.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                      ORDER OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                             of 5 June 2002
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-205/00: Irish Cement Ltd v Commission of the
                     European Communities (1)
                                                                                of 5 June 2002
(Appeal — Competition — Cement — Article 85(1) of the
EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Appeal in part                            in Case C-211/00 P: Ciments Français SA v Commission
 manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)                                   of the European Communities (1)
                                                                             (Appeals — Competition — Cement — Article 85(1) of the
                           (2002/C 191/16)
                                                                             EC Treaty (now, Article 81(1) EC) — Appeal in part
                                                                                manifestly unfounded)
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (2002/C 191/17)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case C-205/00 P, Irish Cement Ltd, established in Dublin
(Ireland), represented by P. Sreenan, SC, instructed by J. Glack-
in, solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg: Appeal             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
against the judgment of the Fourth Chamber, Extended                                             in the European Court Reports)
Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Joined Cases T-25/95, T-26/95, T-30/95 to
T-32/95, T-34/95 to T-39/95, T-42/95 to T-46/95, T-48/95,
T-50/95 to T-65/95, T-68/95 to T-71/95, T-87/95, T-88/95,                    In Case C-211/00 P: Ciments Français SA, established in Paris,
T-103/95 and T-104/95 Cimenteries CBR and Others v                           represented by A. Winckler, lawyers — appeal against the
Commission [2000] ECR II-491, seeking to have that judgment                  judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
set aside in part, the other party to the proceedings being:                 Communities, Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: R. Lyal),                     15 March 2000 in Joined Cases T-25/95, T-36/95, T-30/95 to
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of                T-32/95, T-34/95 to T-39/95, T-42/95 to T-46/95, T-48/95,
the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola,                      T-50/95 to T-65/95, T-68/95 to T-71/95, T-87/95 to T-88/95
M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                    and T-103/95 to T-104/95 Cimenteries CBR and Others v
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                  Commission [2000] ECR II-491, seeking to have that judgment
5 June 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:                      partially set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal,
                                                                             assisted by N. Coutrelis) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
1.    The following are rejected as manifestly inadmissible and              composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward
      manifestly unfounded:                                                  (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges;
                                                                             D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
      —     the first to third, ninth to twelfth and fourteenth heads of     made an order on 5 June 2002, the operative part of which is
            the third plea in law,                                           as follows:
 ---pagebreak--- 10.8.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 191/11
1.    The first and fourth grounds of appeal are dismissed as                1.    The fourth, fifth and sixth grounds of appeal are dismissed in
      manifestly unfounded.                                                        their entirety as manifestly unfounded.
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                    2.    Costs are reserved.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                   (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                     ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                            of 5 June 2002
                                                                                of 5 June 2002
in Case C-213/00 P: Italcementi — Fabbriche Riunite
Cemento SpA v Commission of the European Communi-                            in Case C-217/00 P: Buzzi Unicem SpA v Commission of
                                 ties (1)                                                      the European Communities (1)
(Appeals — Competition — Cement — Article 85(1) of the                       (Appeals — Competition — Cement — Article 85(1) of the
EC Treaty (now, Article 81(1) EC) — Appeal in part                           EC Treaty (now, Article 81(1) EC) — Appeal in part
                       manifestly unfounded)                                  manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
                           (2002/C 191/18)
                                                                                (2002/C 191/19)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(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-219/00 P: Italcementi — Fabbriche Riunite Cemento
SpA, established in Bergamo, Italy, represented by A. Predieri,              In Case C-217/00 P: Buzzi Unicem SpA, formerly Unicem
M. Siragusa, M. Beretta, C. Lanciani and F. M. Moretti, lawyers              SpA, established in Casale Monferrato (Italy), represented by
— appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance                 C. Osti and A. Prastaro, lawyers — appeal against the judgment
of the European Communities, Fourth Chamber, Extended                        of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities,
Composition, of 15 March 2000 in Joined Cases T-25/95,                       Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of 15 March 2000
T-36/95, T-30/95 to T-32/95, T-34/95 to T-39/95, T-42/95                     in Joined Cases T-25/95, T-36/95, T-30/95 to T-32/95, T-34/
to T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95 to T-65/95, T-68/95 to T-71/                    95 to T-39/95, T-42/95 to T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95 to
95, T-87/95 to T-88/95 and T-103/95 to T-104/95 Cimente-                     T-65/95, T-68/95 to T-71/95, T-87/95 to T-88/95 and T-103/
ries CBR and Others v Commission [2000] ECR II-491, seeking                  95 to T-104/95 Cimenteries CBR and Others v Commission
to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the                      [2000] ECR II-491, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
proceedings being Commission of the European Communities                     the other party to the proceedings being Commission of the
(Agents: R. Lyal, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) — the Court (Fifth               European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal, assisted by A. Dal
Chamber), composed of P. Jann, Presidents of the Chamber,                    Ferro) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Jann,
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and                   Presidents of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La
A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;                  Pergola, M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 5 June 2002, the                       Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order
operative part of which is as follows:                                       on 5 June 2002, the operative part of which is as follows: