title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2000 in Case C-98/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England &Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)): Commissioners of Customs & Excise v Midland Bank plc (Value added tax — First and Sixth VAT Directives — Deduction of input tax — Taxable person carrying out both taxable and exempt transactions — Attribution of input services to output transactions — Need for a direct and immediate link)

text:
C 233/10                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12.8.2000
The first sentence of Article 3a(3) of Council Regulation (EEC)             Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the                   have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) applies to
application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC)       supplementary retirement pension schemes, such as that at issue in
No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector, as amended by               the main proceedings, and precludes those schemes from discrimina-
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 of 13 June 1991, must be                ting, as from 17 May 1990, between men and women in respect of
interpreted in the light of the principles governing the system for the     the age at which their spouse is entitled to a survivor’s pension
grant of a special reference quantity as meaning that a producer            following the death of those employees.
holding an original reference quantity who provisionally receives a
special reference quantity in addition may not be definitively allocated
that special reference quantity, regardless of the other conditions
                                                                            (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
required, when he himself has not used it in order to increase current
milk production on his holding. That is the case where such a
producer leases out his original reference quantity and produces on
his holding only his provisional special reference quantity of milk.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 8 June 2000
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                            in Case C-98/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                           of 25 May 2000                                   the High Court of Justice (England &Wales), Queen’s
                                                                            Bench Division (Divisional Court)): Commissioners of
in Case C-50/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                               Customs & Excise v Midland Bank plc (1)
the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris): Jean-Marie
Podesta v Caisse de Retraite par répartition des Ingénieurs                 (Value added tax — First and Sixth VAT Directives —
          Cadres & Assimilés (CRICA) and Others (1)                         Deduction of input tax — Taxable person carrying out both
                                                                            taxable and exempt transactions — Attribution of input
(Social policy — Equal pay for men and women — Private,                     services to output transactions — Need for a direct and
inter-occupational, supplementary retirement pension sche-                                            immediate link)
me based on defined contributions and run on a ‘pay-as-you-
go’ basis— Survivors’ pensions for which the age conditions
                  for grant vary according to sex)                                                   (2000/C 233/20)
                           (2000/C 233/19)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                     (Language of the case: French)                         In Case C-98/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of
                                                                            Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Court), United Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling in the
                    in the European Court Reports)                          proceedings pending before that court between Commissio-
                                                                            ners of Customs & Excise plc and Midland Bank plc — on the
In Case C-50/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                interpretation of Article 2 of the First Council Directive
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal                        67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of
de Grande Instance, Paris, for a preliminary ruling in the                  legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ,
proceedings pending before that court between Jean-Marie                    English Special Edition 1967, p. 14) and Article 17(2), (3) and
Podesta and Caisse de Retraite par répartition des Ingénieurs               (5) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977
Cadres & Assimilés (CRICA) and Others — on the interpreta-                  on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
tion of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of                to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC)              uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)— the Court
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward,                    (Second Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of
President of the Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rappor-                the Chamber, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm,
teur), P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate                 Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given            Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
a judgment on 25 May 2000, in which it has ruled:                           8 June 2000, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 12.8.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 233/11
1.    Article 2 of the First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of                anwalt, Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
      11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member           the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe — Appeal
      States concerning turnover taxes and Article 17(2), (3) and (5)       against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
      of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977              European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composi-
      on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating        tion) of 16 September 1998 in Cases T-133/95 and T-204/95
      to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:                 IECC v Commission [1998] ECR II-3645, seeking to have that
      uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning            judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being:
      that, in principle, the existence of a direct and immediate link      International Express Carriers Conference (IECC), established
      between a particular input transaction and a particular output        in Geneva, Switzerland, represented by E. Morgan de Rivery,
      transaction or transactions giving rise to entitlement to deduct      of the Paris Bar, and J. Derenne and M. Cunningham, of the
      is necessary before the taxable person is entitled to deduct input    Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
      value added tax and in order to determine the extent of such          Chambers of A. Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix, Commission of
      entitlement.                                                          the European Communities (Agent: K. Wiedner, assisted by N.
                                                                            Forwood), La Poste, represented by H. Lehman, of the Paris
2.    It is for the national court to apply the ‘direct and immediate       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
      link’ test to the facts of each case before it. A taxable person      Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch, United Kingdom of
      who makes transactions in respect of which value added tax is         Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The Post Office —
      deductible and transactions in respect of which it is not may         The Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward,
      deduct the value added tax in respect of the goods or services        President of the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and A.
      acquired by him, provided that such goods or services have a          La Pergola, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
      direct and immediate link with the output transactions in             R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 11 May 2000, the
      respect of which value added tax is deductible, without it being      operative part of which is as follows:
      necessary to take into account Article 17(2), (3) or (5) of the
      Sixth Directive 77/388. However, such a taxable person                1.    The appeal is dismissed.
      cannot deduct in its entirety the value added tax charged on
      input services where they have been utilised not for the purpose      2.    Deutsche Post AG shall pay the costs.
      of carrying out a deductible transaction but in the context of
      activities which are no more than the consequence of making           3.    International Express Carriers Conference and La Poste shall
      such a transaction, unless that person can show by means of                 bear their own costs.
      objective evidence that the expenditure involved in the acquisition
      of such services is part of the various cost components of the
      output transaction.                                                   (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
(1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
                                                                            Appeal brought on 14 April 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                            the European Communities against the judgment delive-
                                                                            red on 10 February 2000 by the Third Chamber of the
                      ORDER OF THE COURT                                    Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                            Joined Cases T-32/98 and T-41/98 between, on the one
                          (Fourth Chamber)                                  hand, the Government of the Netherlands Antilles and,
                                                                            on the other hand, the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain
                           of 11 May 2000
                                                                                (Case C-142/00 P)
in Case C-428/9 P: Deutsche Post AG v International
Express Carriers Conference (IECC), Commission of the
European Communities, La Poste, United Kingdom of                                                    (2000/C 233/22)
Great Britain and Northern Ireland and The Post Office (1)
                                                                            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 February
(Appeal — Competition — Abuse of a dominant position —                      2000 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                      Postal services — Remail)                             the European Communities in Joined Cases T-32/98 and
                                                                            T-41/98 between, on the one hand, the Government of the
                                                                            Netherlands Antilles and, on the other hand, the Commission
                           (2000/C 233/21)                                  of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of
                                                                            Spain, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                            Communities on 14 April 2000 by the Commission of the
                     (Language of the case: English)                        European Communities, represented by T. van Rijn, Legal
                                                                            Adviser, of the Commission’s Legal Service, with an address
In Case C-428/98 P: Deutsche Post AG, having its registered                 for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la
office in Bonn, Germany, represented by D. Schroeder, Rechts-               Cruz, of its Legal Service.


title: Action brought on 2 June 1998 by Dimitrios Gouloussis against the Commission (Case T-86/98)

text:
C 327/26             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.10.98
Action brought on 2 June 1998 by Dimitrios Gouloussis               6. order the Commission to provide the applicant with
                  against the Commission                                copies of the documents showing the factors taken
                                                                        into account by the appointing authority regarding the
                       (Case T-86/98)
                                                                        suitability of the person selected for the post to be
                        (98/C 327/48)                                   filled, namely Antonio Caeiro;
               (Language of the case: Greek)                        7. order the Commission to pay all the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 2 June 1998 by
Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal Adviser of the Commission,
resident at 131 Rue Broqueville, 1200 Brussels,                     According to the applicant, the decision of the appointing
represented by Eleni Metaxaki and Panagiotis                        authority to fill the post of principal legal adviser is non-
Giatagantzidis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for              existent. The decision was not taken by the
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Catherine                  Commissioners themselves, who constitute the appointing
Thill-Kamitaki, 4 Rue de l'Avenir, L-1147 Luxembourg.               authority in this instance, but by an unknown organ since,
                                                                    three days before the time-limit for submitting
                                                                    candidatures expired, the name of the person who had
                                                                    been selected for the advertised post was announced at a
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    meeting of the Transparency Group' at which 12
                                                                    Commission legal advisers were present.
1. annul the decision of the Commission of the European
    Communities of 30 July 1997 promoting Antonio
    Caeiro to the post of principal legal adviser in Grade          The applicant submits in the alternative that the decision
    A 2;                                                            being challenged is invalid because there was a misuse of
                                                                    powers in its adoption. The appointing authority did not
                                                                    use the power conferred on it to promote officials lawfully
                                                                    but to satisfy an objective inconsistent with the Staff
2. annul the decision, implicitly contained in the above
                                                                    Regulations, namely in order to grant a request by the
    unlawful     measure,      rejecting   the     applicant's
                                                                    Portuguese Government that a Portuguese legal adviser be
    candidature for the same post;
                                                                    promoted to the post at issue. The decision thus infringes
                                                                    Article 173 of the Treaty in conjunction with the third
                                                                    paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and
3. annul the implied decision of the Commission rejecting           Article 45 thereof.
    the complaint preceding the application;
                                                                    Furthermore, the decision is invalid because it was never
4. in order to establish the facts on which the application
                                                                    notified to the applicant in the required form.
    Ð and, in particular, the ground based on the third
    paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations Ð are
    founded, examine as witnesses the legal advisers
    present at the meeting of 19 June 1997 referred to in           The applicant contends in addition that the decisions
    paragraph II.1 of the application and the Director-             being challenged are invalid because of a complete failure
    General of the Commission's Legal Service, Jean-Louis           to state the grounds for them.
    Dewost, in particular with regard to the view which
    he expressed concerning the applicant and the person
    selected for the post at issue at all the stages of the         They are also invalid because of a manifest error as to the
    procedure for filling the post;                                 facts. The appointing authority was entirely mistaken with
                                                                    regard to the qualifications of the person selected and
                                                                    those of the applicant.
5. order the Commission to provide the applicant with
    copies of all the documents relating to the procedure
    for the adoption of the measures being challenged and,
    in particular, of the minutes of the meetings of the            The applicant submits, furthermore, that the entire
                                                                    procedure governing the promotion and the consideration
    competent organs (including those of the Advisory
                                                                    of the complaint is invalid because the body which
    Committee on Appointments to Grades A 1 and A 2,
    of the European Commission and of the preceding                 adopted the administrative measures was called on to
                                                                    decide the complaint against them.
    meeting of the Chefs de Cabinet of the
    Commissioners) but also other documents whose
    existence the applicant is unaware of because of the
    lack of transparency in the procedure for the adoption          Finally, the measures being challenged should be annulled
    of the measures being challenged;                               because they offend against the principle of transparency,
 ---pagebreak--- 24.10.98             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 327/27
which the Commission must observe when it adopts                     economics and part of the professional experience when
administrative measures.                                             classifying him.
                                                                     Although the directive on higher-education diplomas (1)
                                                                     does not bind the Community institutions directly, it
                                                                     would nevertheless be paradoxical if those institutions
                                                                     placed a different meaning on higher-education diploma'
Action brought on 8 June 1998 by Jürgen Wettig against
                                                                     and thereby disregarded the objectives and provisions of
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                     the directive.
                       (Case T-91/98)
                        (98/C 327/49)                                (1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC, (OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16).
               (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 8 June 1998 by               Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Anthony Goldstein
Jürgen Wettig, of Brussels, Belgium, represented by Peter               against the Commission of the European Communities
Wiesner, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, Germany, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dr                                      (Case T-100/98)
Johannes Henricus Van Vliet, 49 Rue Glesener.
                                                                                (98/C 327/50)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Ð annul the decision of the defendant of 5 November
    1997 definitively classifying him in Step 1 of Grade
    A 5 from 1 October 1996;                                         An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 30 June 1998
Ð order the defendant to classify him in Step 2 of his               by Anthony Goldstein, represented by Raymond St John
    current grade retroactively from 1 October 1996;                 Murphy, Merriman White, 3, King's Bench Walk, Inner
                                                                     Temple, London EC4Y 7DJ, United Kingdom.
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     Ð declare the Commission in breach of Council Directive
The applicant, a graduate of the Fachhochschule für                       84/450/EEC (1) to the extent that the Citizens First
Finanzen (higher education establishment specialising in                  Factsheet on the Recognition of Diplomas and
finance) of the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, has been                  Qualifications of General and Specialist Doctors in the
working as a member of the Commission's temporary staff                   United Kingdom misrepresents the rules applicable to
(in Directorate E of Directorate General XI) since                        specialist medical practitioners in the United Kingdom
1 October 1996. In accordance with clause 3 of his                        in order to promote the supply of specialist medical
contract of employment, he was classified in Step 1 of                    services by a category of medical practitioners who are
Grade A 5.                                                                not qualified by law to practise the regulated medical
                                                                          profession as licensed specialist medical practitioners
                                                                          and who have not completed the prescribed specialist
The applicant contends that when he took up his duties he                 medical training at Community level and national
already had more than 16 years' professional experience                   level and thereby do not offer the minimum safeguards
which was to be taken into account. Nevertheless, in                      required by Community law for practising a medical
breach of his right to be classified in the appropriate (or               specialty regulated by Community law as a specialist
definitive') step, the initial classification was retained,              medical practitioner;
although that is inconsistent with the Commission's
current administrative practice.
                                                                     Ð declare the Commission in breach of Council Directive
By recruiting the applicant in Grade A 5, the appointing                  84/450/EEC to the extent that the Citizens First
authority had implicitly recognised his diploma in                        Factsheet on the Recognition of Diplomas and


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 9 June 1998 in Joined Cases C-129/97 and C-130/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Dijon): criminal proceedings against Yvon Chiciak and Fromagerie Chiciak, Jean-Pierre Fol, third parties: Syndicat de Défense de l'Époisses and Others (Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Exclusive competence of the Commission - Scope of the protection of names comprising several terms)

text:
15.8.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 258/3
European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented              Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the
by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address            registration of geographical indications and designations
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire               of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of
Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange Ð the Court (Fourth                   Regulation No 2081/92 (OJ L 148 of 21.6.1996, p. 1) Ð
Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the                the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and K. M. Ioannou                          President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and
(Rapporteur), Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate General; R.               M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers), J. C. Moitinho de
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 May 1998,               Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, J.-P. Puissochet,
in which it:                                                         G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La Pergola,
                                                                     Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 June 1998, in which
1. Dismisses the appeal;                                             it has ruled:
2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities                 1. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July
     to pay the costs.                                                    1992 on the protection of geographical indications
                                                                          and designations of origin for agricultural products
                                                                          and foodstuffs must be interpreted as meaning that,
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.
                                                                          since its entry into force, a Member State may not, by
                                                                          adopting provisions of national law, alter a
                                                                          designation of origin for which it has requested
                                                                          registration in accordance with Article 17 and protect
                                                                          that designation at national level.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 2. As regards a compound' designation of origin, the
                        of 9 June 1998                                    fact that there is no footnote in the annex to
                                                                          Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June
in Joined Cases C-129/97 and C-130/97 (reference for a                    1996 on the registration of geographical indications
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance,                  and designations of origin under the procedure laid
Dijon): criminal proceedings against Yvon Chiciak and                     down in Article 17 of Regulation No 2081/92
Fromagerie Chiciak, Jean-Pierre Fol, third parties:                       specifying that registration is not sought for one of the
       Syndicat de DeÂfense de l'EÂpoisses and Others (1)                 parts of that designation does not necessarily mean
(Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of                         that each of its constituent parts is protected.
geographical indications and designations of origin for
agricultural products and foodstuffs Ð Exclusive                     (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
competence of the Commission Ð Scope of the protection
             of names comprising several terms)
                        (98/C 258/05)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                               of 11 June 1998
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     in Joined Cases C-232/95 and C-233/95: Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)
In Joined Cases C-129/97 and C-130/97: reference to the
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the                    (Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Directive 76/464/EEC Ð
Tribunal de Grande Instance (Regional Court), Dijon                              Water pollution Ð Non-transposition)
(France), for a preliminary ruling in the criminal                                            (98/C 258/06)
proceedings pending before that court against Yvon
Chiciak and Fromagerie Chiciak (C-129/97), Jean-Pierre
Fol (C-130/97), third parties: Syndicat de DeÂfense de                                (Language of the case: Greek)
l'EÂpoisses (C-129/97 and C-130/97), Institut National des
Appellations d'Origine ContrôleÂes (INAO) (C-129/97 and
C-130/97), Association Nationale d'Appellation d'Origine
LaitieÁre FrancËaise (ANAOF) (C-129/97 and C-130/97),                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Laiterie de la Côte SARL and Others (C-130/97) Ð on the                        published in the European Court Reports)
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of
14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications
and designations of origin for agricultural products and             In Joined Cases C-232/95 and C-233/95: Commission of
foodstuffs (OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1) and Commission              the European Communities (Agent: Maria Condou-


title: Case T-211/00: Action brought on 11 August 2000 by Aldo Kuĳer against the Council of the European Union

text:
4.11.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 316/27
Action brought on 9 August 2000 by Frank Lamberts                        —     failed to organise any real mediation, and did not
against the European Ombudsman and the European                                even attempt to seek an alternative solution with the
                            Parliament                                         Commission, invariably taking refuge behind the prin-
                                                                               ciple of equal treatment;
                          (Case T-209/00)
                                                                         —     accepted as sufficient the Commission’s refusal as a
                         (2000/C 316/52)                                       matter of principle to consider any amicable or alternative
                                                                               resolution; and
                   (Language of the case: French)                        —     should have informed the applicant from the outset, and
                                                                               for as long as the option of resorting to legal proceedings
An action against the European Ombudsman and the European                      remained open to the applicant, that intervention by the
Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of                   Ombudsman would probably come to nothing, and
the European Communities on 9 August 2000 by Frank                             should therefore have advised him to bring the matter
Lamberts, residing at Linkebeek (Belgium), represented by Eric                 before the Court of First Instance of the European
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar.                                                 Communities.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     primarily:
      —     order the defendants jointly and severally or in
            solidum to pay to the applicant the sum of                   Action brought on 11 August 2000 by Aldo Kuijer against
            2 468 787 euros by way of compensation for                                 the Council of the European Union
            material and financial damage and the sum of
            124 000 euros by way of compensation for non-                                         (Case T-211/00)
            material damage, together with interest at the legal
            rate until payment in full;                                                           (2000/C 316/53)
      —     order the defendants jointly and severally or in
            solidum to pay the costs in any event;                                          (Language of the case: English)
—     in the alternative:
                                                                         An action against the Council of the European Union was
      —     order the defendants jointly and severally or in             brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
            solidum to pay to the applicant the sum of                   Communities on 11 August 2000 by Aldo Kuijer, represented
            1 234 394 euros by way of compensation for                   by Onno W. Brouwer of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in
            material and financial damage and the sum of                 Amsterdam and Brussels.
            124 000 euros by way of compensation for non-
            material damage, together with interest at the legal         The applicant claims that the Court should:
            rate until payment in full;
                                                                         —     annul the contested decision whereby the Council refuses
      —     order the defendants jointly and severally or in                   to grant access to the documents requested by the
            solidum to pay the costs in any event.                             applicant;
                                                                         —     order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
                                                                               Instance, including costs of eventual intervening parties.
The applicant in the present case was required to attend for
the purposes of the oral test in competition COM/T/A/98; the
letter calling upon him to attend stated that ‘the arrangements          Pleas in law and main arguments
concerning the organisation of the tests are such that it is not
possible to alter the time-schedule indicated’, despite the fact         The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision adopted by
that, according to the applicant, he was suffering from the              the Council on 5 June 2000 following the judgment of the
effects of medical treatment which gave rise to abnormally               Court of First instance of 6 April 2000 in case T-188/98
aggravated physical reactions. In consequence of his exclusion           Kuijer/Council. By this judgment, the Court annulled the
from the list of suitable candidates, he lodged a complaint with         Council’s decision of 28 September 1998, as amended by its
the Ombudsman.                                                           decision of 18 May 1999, which refused to grant access to
                                                                         certain documents requested by the applicant pursuant to
The applicant complains that the Ombudsman has been                      Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December 1993 on public
seriously negligent in the performance of his duties.                    access to Council documents. In order to comply with this
                                                                         judgment, the Council resumed the relevant procedure as from
In his view, the Ombudsman:                                              the time of the applicant’s application and re-examined the
                                                                         request, after which it refused to grant access to the requested
—     failed to fulfil his obligations to provide the applicant          documents and to examine whether partial access should be
      with advice and information;                                       granted to the information contained in these documents.
 ---pagebreak--- C 316/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.11.2000
The grounds and arguments alleged by the applicant against               —     The Commission’s findings that the Regulations 17 and
the refusal by the Council to grant (partial) access to the                    1017/68 apply to various of the charges and surcharges
requested documents are similar to those invoked in case                       to which the decision relates is vitiated by breach of
T-188/98 (1).                                                                  essential procedural requirements and substantive errors
                                                                               of law. Concretely, the defects in the Commission’s
                                                                               market definition and reasoning vitiate the decision and
(1) OJ C 71, 13.3.99, p. 28.                                                   render it unlawful.
                                                                         —     The decision is vitiated by inadequate and contradictory
                                                                               reasoning in its application of Article 2 and 5 of Regu-
                                                                               lation 1017/68 and of Articles 81(1) and (3) EC to the
                                                                               alleged agreement not to discount the charges and
                                                                               discharges which it finds to fall within the scope of,
                                                                               respectively, Regulation 1017/68 and Regulation 17.
Action brought on 11 August 2000 by CMA CGM and
thirteen other Liner Shipping Companies against the                      —     There should be no basis for the application of Regu-
         Commission of the European Communities                                lation 17 and Regulation 1017/68 in relation to any
                                                                               alleged agreement not to discount levels of Terminal
                                                                               Handling Charge (TCH). Any agreement by the Applicants
                         (Case T-213/00)
                                                                               relating to TCHs and to be subject to Regulation (EEC)
                                                                               No 4056/86 (2).
                         (2000/C 316/54)
                                                                         —     The fines imposed by the Commission are excessive and
                                                                               inappropriate in view of the gravity and duration of the
                   (Language of the case: English)                             alleged infringment, the cooperation of the FETTCSA
                                                                               parties with the Commission and other mitigation factor
                                                                               and the duration of the Commission’s procedure.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 August 2000 by CMA CGM                        —     The Commission’s methodology for setting the levels of
and thirteen other Liner Shipping Companies, represented by                    the fines should be considered as irrational and incoher-
John Pheasant, Catherine Barlen and Matthew Levitt of Lovells                  ent, resulting in discrimination between the FETTCSA
Boesebeck Droste, Brussels and Denis Waelbroeck and Ute                        parties.
Zinsmeister of Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels.
                                                                         (1) Applying rules of competition to transport by rail, road and
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  inland waterway (OJEC No L 175, of 23.7.68, p. 1).
                                                                         (2) Laying down detailed rules for the application of Articles 85 and
—     annul the decision in its entirety, or, alternatively, at least        86 of the Treaty to maritime transports (OJEC L 378, of 31.12.86,
      in so far as it was adopted under Regulations 17 and                   p. 4).
      1017/68;
—     in any event, that the fines imposed by Article 4 of the
      decision be annulled or reduced; and
—     that the Commission be ordered to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 16 August 2000 by ‘X’ against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
The applicants in the present case are fourteen of the liner
shipping operators which were party to the FETTCSA, an                                            (Case T-214/00)
agreement between shipping lines operating on the North
Europe/Far East trade. The FETTCSA was entered into on                                            (2000/C 316/55)
5 March 1991 and was terminated on 10 May 1994. The
contested decision finds that the applicants infringed Article 81
EC and Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1917/68 (1), by agree-
ing not to discount from published tariffs for charges and                                   (Language of the case: French)
surcharges, and requires the applicants to refrain from agree-
ments on concerted practices having the same or similar effect.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The decision imposes fines.
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 16 August 2000 by ‘X’, represented
In support of their conclusions, the applicants submit that:             by Joëlle Choucroun, of the Luxembourg Bar.


title: Action brought on 29 April 1997 by C. de Keijzer against the European Community (Case T-144/97)

text:
No C 199/38                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 6 . 97
is liable for the loss of income which he has consequently                  residing at Beek ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H.
suffered and may suffer in the future, since, had he been                   Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address
in possession of a quota at the time of relocating his                      for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden,
business activities, he could have transferred it to his new                62 Avenue Guillaume .
holding.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should :
(') Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1546/88 of 3 June 1988
    laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional        — order the Community to pay to the applicant the sum
    levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68
    ( OJ No L 139, 4 . 6 . 1988 , p. 12 ), as amended by Commission              of Fl 120 559 ( namely, the amount resulting from the
    Regulation ( EEC ) No 1033/89 of 20 April 1989 ( OJ No L 110,                application of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ),
    21 . 4 . 1989 , p. 27 ).                                                     together with an amount corresponding to the damage
                                                                                sustained by the applicant in respect of tax
                                                                                disadvantages, monetary depreciation and loss of
                                                                                income, and interest on the principal sum at the rate
                                                                                of 8 % per annum from 19 May 1992 until the date of
                                                                                payment in full,
Action brought on 29 April 1997 by C. de Keijzer against
                       the European Community                               — order the Community to pay the costs .
                             ( Case T-144/97 )
                                ( 97/C 199/87 )
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                            Case T-532/ 93 .
An action against the European Community was brought
 before the Court of First Instance of the European
 Communities on 29 April 1997 by C. de Keijzer, residing
 at Noordgouwe ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H.
 Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address
 for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden,                   Action brought on 30 April 1997 by J. M. M. Bakkers
 62 Avenue Guillaume .                                                      against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                        ( Case T-146/97 )
 — order the Community to pay to the applicant the sum                                                ( 97/C 199/ 89 )
      of Fl 118 995 ( namely, the amount resulting from the
      application of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ),                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
      together with an amount corresponding to the damage
      sustained by the applicant in respect of tax                           An action against the European Community was brought
      disadvantages, monetary depreciation and loss of                       before the Court of First Instance of the European
      income, and interest on the principal sum at the rate                  Communities on 30 April 1997 by J. M. M. Bakkers,
      of 8 % per annum from 19 May 1992 until the date of                    residing at Diessen (Netherlands ), represented by A. A. M.
      payment in full ,                                                      Beek, of the Tilburg Bar.
 — order the Community to pay the costs .                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         — declare that the European Economic Community is
                                                                                liable in damages to the applicant,
 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
 Case T-532/93 .
                                                                             — declare that the European Economic Community is
                                                                                liable to the applicant for the loss of income suffered
                                                                                by him as a result of the application of Council
                                                                                Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 and
                                                                                of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 764/89 of 20 March
                                                                                1989 amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84,
 Action brought on 29 April 1997 by J. P. W. Vrencken                             inasmuch as those regulations contain(ed ) no provision
                 against the European Community                                   enabling a representative reference quantity to be
                              ( Case T-145 /97 )                                  granted to SLOM transferees who, pursuant to an
                                  97/C 199/ 88 )                                  undertaking given in accordance with Council
                                                                                Regulation ( EEC ) No 1078/77, did not supply any
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                                milk during the reference year selected by the Member
                                                                                State concerned,
 An action against the European Community was brought
  before the Court of First Instance of the European                         — declare that the applicant has suffered a loss of income
  Communities on 29 April 1997 by J. P. W. Vrencken,                              amounting to the difference between, on the one hand,


title: Case C-228/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, by order of that court of 21 March 2005 in Stradasfalti Srl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Trento

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, by order of that court of 21 March 2005 in Stradasfalti Srl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Trento
   (Case C-228/05)
   (2005/C 193/25)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento of 21 March 2005 received at the Court Registry on 24 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Stradasfalti Srl and Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Trento on the following questions:

               1.

               Is the first sentence of Article 17(7) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (1), in relation to paragraph 2 of that article, on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States on turnover taxes, to be interpreted as:

                           (a)

                           precluding from being treated as ‘consultation of the VAT Committee’, for the purposes of Article 29 of that directive, the mere notification by a Member State of the adoption of a rule of national law, like the present Article 19a(1)(c) and (d) of Presidential Decree No 633/1972, as subsequently extended, which restricts the right of VAT deduction in respect of the use and maintenance of goods under Article 17(2), on the basis that the VAT Committee has merely taken notice of the adoption of that rule;

                           (b)

                           also precluding from being treated as a measure falling within its scope any restriction whatsoever of the right to deduct VAT connected to the purchase, use and maintenance of the goods referred to in (a) introduced before the consultation of the VAT Committee and maintained in force by means of various legislative extensions adopted in unbroken succession for more than 25 years;

                           (c)

                           if the answer to 1(b) is in the affirmative, the Court is asked to provide guidelines for determining the maximum period, if any, for such extensions on grounds of cyclical economic reasons referred to in Article 17(7) of the Sixth Directive, or else to state whether the failure to observe the temporary nature of the derogations (repeated over time) confers on the tax payer the right to deduct.

               2.

               If the requirements and conditions for the procedure under Article 17(7) referred to above have not been complied with, the Court of Justice is asked to state whether Article 17(2) of that directive is to be interpreted as precluding a rule of national law or an administrative practice adopted by a Member State after the entry into force of the Sixth Directive (1 January 1979 for Italy) which, objectively and without limitation in time, restricts VAT deduction in respect of the purchase, use and maintenance of certain motor vehicles.

      (1)  OJ L 145 of 13/06/1997 p. 1.


2 . 3 . 96           1 EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 64/25
which the Court of First Instance held that amending                        Removal from the register of Case T-84/95 ( )
Regulations which, after 3 October 1990, fixed a weighting                                       ( 96/C 64/49 )
for Germany by reference to the cost of living in Bonn were
unlawful; the Commission applied Regulation ( ECSC, EC,                             (Language of the case: French)
Euratom ) No 3161 /94, thereby remedying the illegality
which had been established only as from 1 July 1994 .                 By order of 12 January 1996 the President of the First
The applicants also allege an infringement of the principle of        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
equal treatment, since, as from 1 October 1990, they did not
enjoy a purchasing power equivalent to that of other                  T-84/95 : Rene Bebin v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities .
officials who did not transfer part of their remuneration to
Germany.                                                              0 ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
Finally, the Commission failed to ensure that the weighting
for Germany was fixed, in accordance with the Staff
Regulations, at the level of the capital, Berlin, thereby
infringing its duty to have due regard for the interests of
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case T-138/95 ( ] )
officials. Nor did it bring any action for the annulment of the
Regulation in question, even though it was clearly unlawful;                                     ( 96/C 64/50 )
it thereby failed in its task of ensuring the observance of
Community law, a task which also falls within the duty to                          (Language of the case: German)
have due regard for the interests of officials, when the
persons towards whom the unlawful provision and                       By order of 16 January 1996 the President of the First
secondary legislation is directed are officials and other             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
servants .
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-138/95 : Friedrich Engelking v. Council of the European
                                                                      Union and Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                      (!) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
        Removal from the register of Case T-276/94 (')
                            ( 96/C 64/48 )
               (Language of the case: French)                               Removal from the register of Case T-2 13/95 R
                                                                                ( 96/C 64/51 )
By order of 23 January 1996 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                            (Language of the case: Dutch)
T-276/94 : Adam Buick v. Commission of the European
Communities .
                                                                      By order of 24 January 1996 the President of the First
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
( J ) OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .                                  Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-213/95 R: Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf v.
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities.


1.5.1999               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 121/15
       Removal from the register of Case C-373/96 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-220/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 121/31)                                                      (1999/C 121/34)
By order of 3 February 1999 the President of the Court of             By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered he removal            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-373/96 (reference for a preliminary       from the register of Case C-220/97: Commission of the
ruling from the Tribunale di Trento): Ministero delle Finanze         European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany.
v. Merkur Chemical Srl.
(1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.                                                (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-98/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 121/32)                                      Removal from the register of Case C-394/98 (1)
By order of 3 February 1999 the President of the Court of                                    (1999/C 121/35)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered he removal
from the register of Case C-98/97 (reference for a preliminary        By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the Court of
ruling from the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Torino): CIF Srl v.      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Ministero delle Finanze.                                              from the register of Case C-394/98: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 1, 4.1.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-72/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 121/33)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-395/98 (1)
By order of 3 February 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered he removal
from the register of Case C-72/98 (reference for a preliminary                               (1999/C 121/36)
ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Lyon): SA
Gougenheim Imprimerie Publicité v. Directeur des Services             By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the Court of
Fiscaux du Rhône.                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-395/98: Commission of the
(1) OJ C 151, 16.5.1998.                                              European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 397, 19.12.1998.


title: Case C-208/03 P: Appeal brought on 15 May 2003 (fax 10.05.2003) by J.M. Le Pen against the judgment delivered on 10 April 2003 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-353/00 between J.M. Le Pen and the European Parliament, supported by the French Republic

text:
15.11.2003             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 275/23
Appeal brought on 15 May 2003 (fax 10.05.2003) by                        Although in principle emanating from the President of the
J.M. Le Pen against the judgment delivered on 10 April                   Parliament, the act is in the form of a communication to the
2003 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance                 effect that the European Parliament takes note of the notifi-
of the European Communities in Case T-353/00 between                     cation from the French Government confirming Mr Le Pen’s
J.M. Le Pen and the European Parliament, supported by                    removal from office.
                      the French Republic
                        (Case C-208/03 P)                                This is an act of a threefold nature:
                         (2003/C 275/40)                                 —      it has legal effects: in this case it is an act of the European
                                                                                Parliament affecting Mr Le Pen’s legal position, his
                                                                                removal from office being announced or found by the
                                                                                contested act;
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 April 2003
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-353/00 Le Pen v European                  —      it is definitive in nature, since it is an act which cannot be
Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the                       described as preparatory;
European Communities on 15 May 2003 (fax 10.5.2003) by
J.M. Le Pen, represented by F. Wagner, lawyer.
                                                                         —      it has effects beyond the purely internal sphere of the
                                                                                Parliament, since it affects Mr Le Pen’s legal position and
                                                                                civil and political rights. The said decision by the President
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                     of the European Parliament concerns the legal status of
                                                                                the appellant, by depriving him of his elective office,
—     declare the appeal by J.M. Le Pen against the judgment of                 thus affecting electoral representation and ex post facto
      10 April 2003 of the Court of First Instance to be                        distorting the result of the elections.
      admissible;
—     declare the action brought by J.M. Le Pen against the
      decision taken in the form of a declaration by the                 It is therefore a reviewable act and an action against it appears
      President of the European Parliament of 23 October 2003            to be possible given its very nature.
      in the following terms: ‘Pursuant to Article 12(2) of the
      1976 Act, the European Parliament takes note of the
      notification from the French Government confirming
      [the appellant’s] removal from office’ to be admissible;           It would appear that, by a mistaken assessment of law and
                                                                         fact, the Court of First Instance did not distinguish between
                                                                         the question of admissibility (nature of the act) and substance
—     set aside the contested judgment in whole or in part as            (competence of the author of the act).
      regards its various limbs and grounds;
—     give judgment on the points of law, quashing the
      contested judgment, or, in the alternative refer the case          It is only by retroactive reasoning, depriving an individual of
      back to the Court of First Instance pursuant to Article 54         the legal decision to which he is entitled, that the Court of First
      of the Statute of the Court;                                       Instance, considering that the act had no substantive validity
                                                                         by reason of the lack of competence of its author, concluded
—     declare the contested act null and void;                           that it not exist and that therefore the action was inadmissible.
—     award J.M. Le Pen the sum of FRF 50 000 (or
      EUR 7 622,45) as irrecoverable expenses;
                                                                         Since the appeal should be held admissible, the action for the
                                                                         annulment of the decision by the President of the European
—     order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the          Parliament of 23 October 2003 is based on the pleas in law
      appeal.                                                            and main arguments relied upon in the action lodged on
                                                                         21 November 2000 (1).
Pleas and main arguments
                                                                         (1) Case T-353/00 Le Pen v European Parliament, OJ C 28 of
                                                                              27.1.2001, p. 27.
The appeal is based on an infringement of Community law
committed by the Court of First Instance with regard to the
admissibility of the action against the contested act.


title: Case C-433/10 P: Order of the Court of 31 March 2011 — Volker Mauerhofer v European Commission (Appeal — Project supported by the European Union in Bosnia and Herzegovina — Contracts concluded between the Commission and a consortium and between the consortium and experts — Commission’s administrative order amending its contract with the consortium — Action for annulment of that administrative order brought by one of the experts — Admissibility — Action for damages — Non contractual liability of the Union — Causal link between the Commission’s administrative order and the damage allegedly suffered by that expert)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/11

         Order of the Court of 31 March 2011 — Volker Mauerhofer v European Commission
   (Case C-433/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Project supported by the European Union in Bosnia and Herzegovina - Contracts concluded between the Commission and a consortium and between the consortium and experts - Commission’s administrative order amending its contract with the consortium - Action for annulment of that administrative order brought by one of the experts - Admissibility - Action for damages - Non contractual liability of the Union - Causal link between the Commission’s administrative order and the damage allegedly suffered by that expert)
   2011/C 252/21
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Volker Mauerhofer (represented by: J. Schartmüller, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 29 June 2010 in Case T-515/08 Volker Mauerhofer v European Commission by which the Court dismissed an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 9 September 2008 reducing the number of paid days’ work allocated to the applicant to perform tasks resulting from a contract for an expert’s report (Contract No MC/5043/025/001/2008 — ‘Value Chain Mapping Analysis’) concluded with the undertaking responsible for a project carried out in Bosnia and Herzegovina in performance of the framework contract ‘EuropeAid/123314/C/SER/multi — Lot No 5 — Evaluations and presentations in the field of trade, businesses and regional economic integration’ — No challengeable act

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Mauerhofer shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case C-111/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten by order of that court of 24 February 2005 in Aktiebolaget NN v Skatteverket

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten by order of that court of 24 February 2005 in Aktiebolaget NN v Skatteverket
   (Case C-111/05)
   (2005/C 106/38)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) of 24 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 4 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Aktiebolaget NN and Skatteverket on the following question:

               1.

               Is a taxable transaction for the supply and installation of a cable, which is run between the territories of two Member States and also outside Community territory and to which the clearly greater part of the total cost is attributable, to be considered a supply of goods for the purposes of the provisions of the directive (1) regarding the place of taxable transactions?

               2.

               If such a transaction is instead to be considered the supply of a service, is that service to be regarded as having such a connection with immovable property that the place of the service is to be determined in accordance with Article 9(2)(a)?

               3.

               If the answer to either the first or second question is in the affirmative, is Article 8(1)(a), or alternatively Article 9(2)(a), to be interpreted as meaning that the transaction is to be split on the basis of the territorial positioning of the cable?

               4.

               If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, are Article 8(1)(a), or alternatively Article 9(2)(a), and Articles 2(1) and 3(1) to be understood as meaning that value added tax is not payable on that part of the supply of goods or services relating to the area outside the territory of the Community?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).


title: Case T-219/05: Action brought on 6 June 2005 by Marta Andreasen against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/25

         Action brought on 6 June 2005 by Marta Andreasen against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-219/05)
   (2005/C 205/47)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 June 2005 by Marta Andreasen, residing in Barcelona (Spain), represented by Julien Leclère and Jean-Marie Verlaine, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 13 October 2004 to remove the applicant from her post (SEC 2004 12 57 FINAL) taken in the case Andreasen Marta v Commission and, accordingly, reinstate the applicant in her post as a Community official with an identical category and grade (namely A2 — AD15) for breach of Articles 6(1) of the ECHR and Articles 6, 9, 10 and 24 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay an indemnity for the financial loss suffered by the applicant, equivalent to the amount of the salary owed from the time the contested decision took effect until the date of judgment to be delivered by the Court of First Instance, namely EUR 12 300 per month lapsed;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the amount of EUR 1 000 000 by way of compensation for the non-pecuniary loss suffered;

               —

               in the alternative, if the Court of First Instance does not uphold the applicant's principal claim, order the Commission of the European Communities to pay an overall amount equivalent to:

                           (i)

                           the entire salary of the applicant owing to the age of 65 (official retirement age);

                           (ii)

                           the appurtenant contribution into the applicant's pension fund;

                           (iii)

                           EUR 1 000 000 by way of compensation for the non-pecuniary loss;

               —

               order the Commission to pay EUR 12 000 to cover the expenses incurred by the applicant which are not included in costs;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all costs.

         Pleas in law and principal arguments
   The applicant was appointed to the posts of Commission Accounting Officer and Budget Execution Director by decision of 11 December 2001. On 22 May 2002 she was removed from the post of Accounting Officer. She was suspended with effect from 28 August 2002 and disciplinary proceedings were commenced against her. A Disciplinary Board was established in March 2004. Following the recommendations of that board, the applicant was removed from her posts by the contested decision.
   By her first plea, the applicant claims that the proceedings which led to her removal from here posts were null and void because the conditions of impartiality and independence provided for in Article 8 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights were not met in the present case. She argues, first, that the members of the Commission who were behind the accusations made against her were also part of the appointing authority which took the decision to remover her from her posts and, second, that the Disciplinary Board was composed entirely of Commission officials, with exception of one person.
   By her second plea, the applicant argues, first, that the decision to remover her from her posts is a second disciplinary measure taken against her, on the basis of the same facts which led to her suspension and, accordingly, was imposed in breach of Article 9 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations. She argues, as part of the same plea, that the time-limits provided for in Article 24 of the same annex have been exceeded. According to the applicant, that tardiness is also a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicant also claims that the contested decision did not contain a statement of reasons and that the sanction imposed on her was disproportionate.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 29 January 1998 in Case C-61/95: Hellenic Republic v. Commission of the European Communities (Clearance of EAGGF accounts - Expenditure for 1991)

text:
7.3.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 72/3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                                      (Sixth Chamber)
                     of 29 January 1998                                                    of 29 January 1998
in Case C-61/95: Hellenic Republic v. Commission of the              in    Case   C-280/95: Commission of the             European
                  European Communities (1)                                         Communities v. Italian Republic (1)
 (Clearance of EAGGF accounts Ð Expenditure for 1991)                (State aid Ð Fiscal bonus on certain taxes Ð Recovery of
                                                                                aid Ð Not absolutely impossible)
                         (98/C 72/04)
                                                                                (98/C 72/05)
                (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (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-61/95: Hellenic Republic, (Agents: Panagiotis
Milonopoulos and Meletis Tsotsanis) v. Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: Xenophon Yataganas                 In Case C-280/95: Commission of the European
and Dimitrios Gouloussis) Ð application for the                      Communities (Agents: Antonio Aresu and Anders C.
annulment of Commission Decision 94/871/EC of                        Jessen) v. Italian Republic (Agent: Professor Umberto
21 December 1994 on the clearance of the accounts                    Leanza, assisted by Oscar Fiumara) Ð application for a
presented by the Member States in respect of the                     declaration that, by failing to adopt the measures
expenditure for 1991 of the European Agricultural                    necessary to comply with Commission Decision 93/496/
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee                       EEC of 9 June 1993 on State aid procedure C 32/92 (ex
Section (OJ L 352, 31.12.1994, p. 82), in so far as it               NN 67/92) Ð Italy (tax calculation for professional road
concerns the Hellenic Republic Ð the Court (Sixth                    hauliers) (OJ L 233, 16.9.1993, p. 10) and, in particular,
Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the                by failing to recover aid granted as from the 1992
Chamber, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray               financial year in the form of a tax credit in income tax,
and G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), Judges; A. La Pergola,                   municipal tax, or value added tax, unlawfully introduced
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                 by Ministerial Decree of 28 January 1992 in favour of
Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 January 1998, in               professional road hauliers in Italy, the Italian Republic has
which it:                                                            failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty Ð the
                                                                     Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,
                                                                     President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F. Mancini,
                                                                     J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), Judges; N.
1. Annuls       Commission      Decision      94/871/EC      of      Fennelly, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
     21 December 1994 on the clearance of the accounts               Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
     presented by the Member States in respect of the                judgment on 29 January 1998, in which it:
     expenditure for 1991 of the European Agricultural
     Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee
     Section in so far as it did not conclusively accept the
     amount of GRD 3 531 558 038 in respect of                       1. Declares that, by not complying with Commission
     expenditure relating to leaf tobacco premiums and                    Decision 93/496/EEC of 9 June 1993 on State aid
     corresponding refunds as chargeable to the EAGGF;                    procedure C 32/92 (ex NN 67/92) Ð Italy (tax
                                                                          calculation for professional road hauliers), the Italian
                                                                          Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                          EC Treaty;
2. For the remainder, dismisses the application;
3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                       2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 119, 13.5.1995.                                             (1) OJ C 268, 14.10.1995.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2001 in Case T-30/00: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Tablet for washing machines or dishwashers — Figurative mark — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
5.1.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 3/25
Brussels, represented by R. Garcı́a-Gallardo and G. Pérez Olmo,           1.    Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                     EUR 109 921, together with post-maturity interest calculated
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall                      in accordance with Article 18(7) of Commission Regulation
and J. Rivas Andrés) — application for annulment of the                         (EC) No 2519/97 of 16 December 1997 laying down general
decision of the Commission of 26 February 1999 withdrawing                      rules for the mobilisation of products to be supplied under
the applicant’s expatriation allowance and withholding from                     Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/96 as Community food aid,
her remuneration the amounts paid to her in that respect —                      as from 6 May 1999 until the debt is paid in full;
the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke,                2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,
gave a judgment on 20 September 2001, in which it:
                                                                          (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
1.    annuls the decision of the Commission of 26 February 1999;
2.    dismisses as inadmissible the claim that the Court make
      an appropriate order requiring the Commission to fulfil its
      obligations under Article 233 EC;
3.    orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those of            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      the applicant.
                                                                                of 19 September 2001
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                          in Case T-30/00: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation
                                                                          in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (OHIM) (1)
                                                                          (Community trade mark — Tablet for washing machines or
                                                                          dishwashers — Figurative mark — Absolute ground for
                                                                             refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2002/C 3/42)
                      of 19 September 2001
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case T-26/00: Lecureur S.A. v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                          In Case T-30/00: Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf
(Commission Regulation No 2519/97 — Food aid — Arbi-                      (Germany), represented by H.F. Wissel and C. Osterrieth,
tration clause — Contractual nature of the dispute — Non-                 lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
conformity of the goods delivered — Thefts from warehouses                Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
— Transfer of the burden of risk — Deductions from                        and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schen-
                              payments)                                   nen and S. Laitinen) — application brought against the
                                                                          decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
                                                                          Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                           (2002/C 3/41)                                  Designs) of 25 November 1999 (Case R 75/1999-3), which
                                                                          was notified to the applicant on 10 December 1999 — the
                                                                          Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
                    (Language of the case: French)                        A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
                                                                          D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                          judgment on 19 September 2001, in which it:
In Case T-26/00: Lecureur S.A., established in Paris (France),            1.    Dismisses the action;
represented by L. Funck-Brentano and J. Villette, lawyers, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
the European Communities (Agent: P. Oliver) — application                 2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
for an order for payment of sums withheld by the Commission
when paying the balance for a supply of food aid — the Court
                                                                          (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij,
President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 19 September 2001, in which it:


21.10.2000            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 302/23
       Removal from the register of Case C-33/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-231/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 302/52)                                                       (2000/C 302/56)
By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 6 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
the register of Case C-33/00: Commission of the European            register of Case C-231/99: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                   Communities v Republic of Austria.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-34/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-495/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 302/53)                                                       (2000/C 302/57)
By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 6 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
the register of Case C-34/00: Commission of the European            register of Case C-495/99: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                   Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-342/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-432/97 (1)
                       (2000/C 302/54)                                                       (2000/C 302/58)
By order of 28 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 7 July 2000, the President of the Fifth Chamber of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered
the register of Case C-342/99 (reference for a preliminary          the removal from the register of Case C-432/97: Commission
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg): New Yorker S.H.K.            of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
Jeans GmbH v SIMPLEX-1000ST.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-271/99 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case   C-504/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/59)
                       (2000/C 302/55)
                                                                    By order of 11 July 2000, the President of the Sixth Chamber
By order of 28 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            ordered the removal from the register of Case C-271/99:
the register of Case C-504/99 Commission of the European            Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                   Belgium.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.