title: Case C-298/02: Action brought on 21 August 2002 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
26.10.2002             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 261/5
3.    Are the administrative and control procedures for the            Is the amount of aid also to be reduced under the second
      reduction in excise duty which is possible under                 indent of Article 10(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 (1)
      Article 8(2)(f) of Directive 92/81/EEC governed by               where the special premium for male bovine animals applied
      Article 8(8) of Directive 92/81/EEC without the appli-           for when this provision of Community law was in force cannot
      cation of a marker or by Article 1(1) of Directive 95/60/        for legal reasons be granted to the farmer but where in the
      EC ( 2)?                                                         words of Article 44(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 (2),
                                                                       the farmer submitted factually correct information or can
                                                                       show otherwise that he was not at fault?
4.    If the third question should be answered to the effect that
      the Member States which exercise the power under
      Article 8(2)(f) of Directive 92/81/EEC are obliged, in
      an instance comparable to the present case, to grant             (1 ) OJ L 391, 31.12.1992, p. 36.
                                                                       (2 ) OJ L 327, 12.12.2001, p. 11.
      reductions in duty also in the form of a refund of excise
      duty, is a reduction in excise duty for agricultural works
      contrary to the freedom to provide services if the
      reduction is linked to a marking procedure under
      Article 1(1) of Directive 95/60/EC that is not applied in
      this context by other Member States, which on the
      contrary impose excise-duty penalties in the case of
      markings for which no provision is made under their
      legal systems?
                                                                       Action brought on 21 August 2002 by the Italian Republic
5.    If the answer to the fourth question should be in the               against the Commission of the European Communities
      affirmative, does the breach of the freedom to provide
      services mean that liability to pay duty is expunged, or
                                                                                (Case C-298/02)
      would the claimant, in order to achieve exemption from
      duty, be obliged to ask for unmarked mineral oil and
      apply for a refund of excise duty in the Member State in                                 (2002/C 261/09)
      which it obtains marked gas oil at a reduced rate of duty?
( 1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 12.
( 2) OJ L 291, 6.12.1995, p. 46.                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                       Communities on 21 August 2002 by the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities, represented by Umberto Leanza,
                                                                       acting as Agent, assisted by Maurizio Fiorilli, avvocato dello
                                                                       Stato.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Niedersächsi-                —     annul Commission decision No 2281 (1) of 26 June
sches Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that Court of                       2002 in so far as it makes a financial correction of
1 August 2002 in the administrative-law case of Mrs Gisela                   EUR 12 253 816 in respect of account headings B1-
        Gerken against Amt für Agrarstruktur Verden                          1512-001 and B1-1512-004 so far as concerns Italy.
                         (Case C-295/02)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (2002/C 261/08)
                                                                       Aid for peaches and pears intended for the production of fruit
                                                                       salad — financial correction
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Niedersächsisches
Oberverwaltungsgericht (Lower Saxony, Higher Administrat-              According to the Commission, during the 1995-96, 1996-
ive Court) of 1st August 2002, received at the Court Registry          97 and 1997-98 marketing years, aid was granted for a final
on 19 August 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the administrat-        product which did not conform to the definitions contained in
ive-law case of Mrs Gisela Gerken against Amt für Agrar-               Regulations (EEC) No 1558/91 (2) and (EC) No 504/97 (3). The
struktur (Office for Agriculture) Verden on the following              two regulations provided for the payment of aid for whole or
question:                                                              sliced peaches and pears provided that they had undergone
 ---pagebreak--- C 261/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26.10.2002
heat treatment or had been packaged in airtight containers.                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
The Commission claims that the peaches and pears intended                  Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 by
for the production of fruit salad had not undergone adequate               order of that Court of 6 June 2002 in the cases pending
heat treatment (pasteurisation or sterilisation) and had been              between Petrolvilla & Bortolotti Spa (previously S.C.D.
stored in open containers, irrespective of the fact that those             Srl), Energy Service Srl, Panarotta 2002 Srl, Tumedei Spa,
products had been stored for only a few days before being                  NTB Spa (previously Nuova Tessilbrenta Spa), Hotel
included in fruit salads. The infringement of the regulations              Bellavista di Litterini Valter e Nadia Snc, Cattoni Hotel
was in respect of the classification of those products as                  Plaza di Cartoni Giancarlo and C Snc, Villa Luti Srl,
‘intermediate products for the production of fruit salad’. Such            Pavarini Components Srl, Tecnopal Srl, Funivie Madonna
a product was not approved for aid until 1997-1998. The                    di Campiglio Spa against Agenzia delle Entrate (previously
Commission’s position is not valid. Payment of the aid to the                   Direzione delle Entrate) per la Provincia di Trento
processing industries was effected pursuant to Regulation (EC)
No 504/97, which defines peaches in syrup and/or in natural                                         (Case C-306/02)
fruit juice as whole peaches or pieces of peaches, without peel,
having undergone a heat treatment, packed in hermetically
sealed containers with a covering liquid of sugar syrup or                                          (2002/C 261/10)
natural fruit juice. The regulation does not specify the type of
container, require that heat treatment should be applied, nor
lay down the intended use. The Italian Government claims that
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the financial correction applied to 100 % of the products
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-
subsequently intended for the production of fruit salad con-               ria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 (Tax Court of First
tained in 200 kilogram containers is unlawful and should be
                                                                           Instance, Trento, Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2002, received at
annulled.
                                                                           the Court Registry on 27 August 2002, for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the cases pending between Petrolvilla & Bortolotti
                                                                           Spa (previously S.C.D. Srl), Energy Service Srl, Panarotta 2002
                                                                           Srl, Tumedei Spa, NTB Spa (previously Nuova Tessilbrenta
                                                                           Spa), Hotel Bellavista di Litterini Valter e Nadia Snc, Cattoni
                                                                           Hotel Plaza di Cartoni Giancarlo and C Snc, Villa Luti Srl,
                                                                           Pavarini Components Srl, Tecnopal Srl, Funivie Madonna
Inadequate checks on stocks                                                di Campiglio Spa against Agenzia delle Entrate (previously
                                                                           Direzione delle Entrate) per la Provincia di Trento on the
                                                                           following question:
The Commission may claim that checks were inadequate only                  ‘Does the annual assessment to tax at the rate of 0.75 % per
if it should be found that the objectives laid down in the                 annum of a company’s net assets pursuant to Decree-Law
regulation relating to the determination of the methods for                No 324 of 30 September 1992 in so far as it relates solely to
applying the production aid scheme for such processed                      that part of the net assets consisting exclusively of the
products containing fruit and vegetables had not been attained.            company’s capital as disclosed annually in the balance sheet,
In the present case, no evidence to that effect has even                   constitute a tax having equivalent economic effect to capital
been proffered. It follows that the complaint is general,                  duty already levied at the maximum rate of 1 %, thus rendering
unsubstantiated and, therefore, unlawful. Moreover, it should              it incompatible with Community law and, in particular,
be observed that the EAGGF has never given any indication as               Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 ( 1)?’
to what method to apply for inspecting stocks, nor is such a
method mentioned in the regulations governing the sector. It
                                                                           (1 ) OJ L 249, 3.10.1969, p. 25.
follows that the Commission cannot claim that a prescribed
accounting and verification method was infringed. Accord-
ingly, the financial correction of 10 % by way of a penalty for
the alleged inadequate implementation of checks is unlawful.
                                                                           Action brought on 5 September 2002 by the Kingdom
( 1) OJ 2002 L 170, p. 77. Commission Decision excluding from              of Sweden against the Commission of the European
     Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member                                  Communities
     States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
     Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).
                                                                                (Case C-312/02)
( 2) OJ L 144, 8.6.1991, p. 31.
( 3) OJ 1997 L 78, p. 14.
                                                                                (2002/C 261/11)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European


title: Case F-94/09: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 May 2010 — Nikolchov v Commission

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/57

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 May 2010 — Nikolchov v Commission
   (Case F-94/09) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 209/94
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

      (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010, p. 42.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-208/03 P: Jean-Marie Le Pen v European Parliament (Appeal — Elections of Members of the European Parliament — Lack of uniform electoral procedure — Application of national law — Disqualification of a Member of the European Parliament from holding office following a criminal conviction — Measure by which the European Parliament ‘takes note’ of that disqualification — Action for annulment — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 7 July 2005
   in Case C-208/03 P: Jean-Marie Le Pen v European Parliament (1)

   (Appeal - Elections of Members of the European Parliament - Lack of uniform electoral procedure - Application of national law - Disqualification of a Member of the European Parliament from holding office following a criminal conviction - Measure by which the European Parliament ‘takes note’ of that disqualification - Action for annulment - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 217/13)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-208/03 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice lodged on 10 May 2003 by Jean-Marie Le Pen, residing at Saint-Cloud (France), (Agent: F. Wagner), the other party to the proceedings being the European Parliament (Agents: H. Krück and C. Karamarcos), the French Republic, (Agents: R. Abraham, G. de Bergues and L. Bernheim), intervener at first instance — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, J. Makarczyk, P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Le Pen to pay the costs of these proceedings including those of the proceedings for interim measures;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003


title: Case C-380/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 31 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) — Centro Europa 7 Srl v Ministero delle Comunicazioni e Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Direzione Generale Autorizzazioni e Concessioni Ministero delle Comunicazioni (Freedom to provide services — Electronic communications — Television broadcasting activities — New common regulatory framework — Allocation of radio frequencies)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 31 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) — Centro Europa 7 Srl v Ministero delle Comunicazioni e Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Direzione Generale Autorizzazioni e Concessioni Ministero delle Comunicazioni
   (Case C-380/05) (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Electronic communications - Television broadcasting activities - New common regulatory framework - Allocation of radio frequencies)
   (2008/C 79/02)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Consiglio di Stato
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Centro Europa 7 Srl

      Defendants: Ministero delle Comunicazioni e Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Direzione Generale Autorizzazioni e Concessioni Ministero delle Comunicazioni
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) and Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) — Interpretation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights — Obligation on Member States, in the sector of television broadcasting activities, to ensure access to networks and maintain multiplicity of undertakings on the market — National regulations allowing the grant of individual rights to undertakings not authorised under the national plan determining the licensees of television broadcasting services and not allowing an undertaking authorised under the national plan to carry on its activities
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 49 EC and, from the date on which they became applicable, Article 9(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), Article 5(1), the second subparagraph of Article 5(2) and Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), and Article 4 of Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services must be interpreted as precluding, in television broadcasting matters, national legislation the application of which makes it impossible for an operator holding rights to broadcast in the absence of broadcasting radio frequencies granted on the basis of objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria.

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.


title: Case T-227/01: Action brought on 25 September 2001 by Territorio Histórico de Alava — Excma. Diputación de Alava, and the Comunidad autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco against Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.11.2001            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 331/29
     —     If the Commission were to apply such reasoning                 Pleas in law and main arguments
           generally to all fiscal legislation, it would arrive at
           the absurd conclusion that any change in the fiscal
           burden constitutes State aid.                                  The applicant has brought the present action against the
                                                                          Commission in order to seek compensation for the damage
     —     If the Commission carried its reasoning to its final           allegedly suffered as a result of the decisions adopted in the
           logical conclusion, the result would be that any               context of the tender procedure opened in relation to the
           variation within the regulatory framework in which             supply of fruit juice and fruit jams intended for the people of
           undertakings operate would constitute State aid.               Armenia and Azerbaijan under Commission Regulation (EC)
                                                                          No 228/96 of 7 February 1996 on the supply of fruit juice
                                                                          and fruit jams intended for the people of Armenia and
(c)  The applicant refutes the charge that the measures at                Azerbaijan (OJ 1996 L 30, p. 18), in particular decision
     issue are selective and specific in nature, since, first, the        C(96)1916 of 22 July 1996 and decision C(96)2208 of
     legislation is general in nature, not favouring a particular         6 September 1996.
     undertaking or sector over another and, secondly, the
     authority competent to apply it does not enjoy any
     discretion but can instead merely ascertain on a case-by-            Those decisions allowed for the substitution of the fruit
     case basis whether the conditions laid down for triggering           provided for in the tender, with no legal basis nor a supraven-
     the fiscal advantages are met.                                       ing request for it.
                                                                          Both decisions were challenged by the applicant (Joined Cases
                                                                          T-191/96 and T-106/97) (1) before the Court of First Instance
                                                                          which, by judgment of 14 October 1999, annulled the decision
                                                                          of 6 September 1996, declaring the action brought in Case
                                                                          T-106/97 inadmissible on the ground that it was out of time.
Action brought on 25 September 2001 by CAS Succhi di
Frutta SpA against the Commission of the European                         The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
                         Communities                                      forward in the abovementioned cases.
                        (Case T-226/01)                                   (1) [1999] ECR II-3181.
                        (2001/C 331/47)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          Action brought on 25 September 2001 by Territorio
                                                                          Histórico de Alava — Excma. Diputación de Alava, and
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          the Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco — Gobierno
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          Vasco against Commission of the European Communities
European Communities on 25 September 2001 by CAS Succhi
di Frutta SpA, represented by Gian Michele Roberti and
Francesco Sciaudone, lawyers.                                                                     (Case T-227/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 331/48)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
—    find that the Commission has incurred non-contractual
     liability by adopting the decisions of 22 July and of
     6 September 1996,
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—    declare that the applicant suffered damage as a result of            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     those decisions amounting to ITL 2 682 049 410,                      European Communities on 25 September 2001 by the Territo-
                                                                          rio Histórico de Alava — Excma. Diputación de Alava, and the
                                                                          Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco — Gobierno Vasco,
—    order the Commission to pay the costs.                               Alava (Spain), represented by Ramón Falcón, lawyer.
 ---pagebreak--- C 331/30                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.11.2001
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                    —     recovery of the aid cannot be imposed as an
                                                                                obligation when there are other options for restoring
                                                                                the status quo.
—     annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission
      which is contested in this action, in the alternative, annul
      Article 3 of that decision,
                                                                         (1) That tax credit, in the form now challenged by the contested
                                                                             decision, was provided for in respect of 1995, in the sixth
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 addendum to Norma Foral (Regional Law No 22/1994 of
                                                                             20 December 1994, and was extended until 1996 (Norma Foral
                                                                             No 33/1995) and 1997 (Norma Foral No 31/1996); it was
                                                                             amended by Norma Foral No 24/1996 relativa al Impuesto sobre
                                                                             Sociedades (Regional Law on Corporation Tax). Normas Forales
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              33/1997 and 36/1998 made similar provision in respect of
                                                                             1998 and 1999.
The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2001) 1759
final of 11 July 2001 declaring incompatible with the common
market the tax reductions arising from a number of regional
Laws (1) which provide for a tax credit of 45 % of the
investment in new fixed material assets in excess of ESP
2 500 million (EUR 15 025 303 ) made by undertakings in
the Territorio Histórico de Alava.                                      Action brought on 25 September 2001 by Territorio
                                                                         Histórico de Vizcaya — Excma. Diputación de Vizcaya,
                                                                         and the Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco — Gobierno
                                                                         Vasco against Commission of the European Communities
In support of their claims, the applicants put forward the
following three arguments:
                                                                                (Case T-228/01)
(a)   there is no ‘aid’ within the meaning of Article 87 of the
      EC Treaty. The applicants maintain that, contrary to what                                   (2001/C 331/49)
      is stated in the contested decision:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
      —     the existence of a minimum quantitative threshold
            does not imply that there is any selectivity,
      —     the Commission has not given any substantiate its            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
            charge that the fiscal measure threatens to distort          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
            competition,                                                 European Communities on 25 September 2001 by the Territo-
                                                                         rio Histórico de Vizcaya — Excma. Diputación de Vizcaya, and
                                                                         the Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco — Gobierno Vasco,
      —     moreover, the decision is disproportionate, since it
                                                                         Vizcaya (Spain), represented by Ramón Falcón, lawyer.
            does not even exclude those sectors which are not
            open to competition nor that portion of alleged aid
            which could be regared as compatible;
                                                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
(b) misuse of powers: the Commission is using its powers in
      the field of State aid in order to pursue an objective more        —     annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission
      appropriate to tax harmonisation.                                        which is contested in this action, in the alternative, annul
                                                                               Article 3 of that decision,
(c)   recovery of the aid, at least in the way required by the           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
      contested decision, is excluded:
      —     the requirement to recover the aid is in breach of
            legitimate expectations,                                     Pleas in law and main arguments
      —     recovery should have been excluded in respect of
            those undertakings whos production is intended for           The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2001)
            the local market or for sectors in which there is no         1765 final of 11 July 2001 declaring incompatible with the
            competition, as well as in respect of that portion of        common market the tax reductions arising from the fourth
            the tax credit that does not exceed 25 % net grant           addendum to Norma Foral (Regional Law) No 7/1996 of
            equivalent (NGE),                                            26 December 1996, and the 10th addendum to Norma Foral


title: Case C-98/00: Action brought on 15 March 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
27.5.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 149/25
also applicable to situations in which goods of the type                Action brought on 15 March 2000 by the Commission of
specified therein are, in the course of transit between two             the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
countries not belonging to the European Community, tempor-
arily detained by the customs authorities in a Member State on
the basis of that regulation, at the request of a holder of rights                                (Case C-98/00)
who claims that his rights have been infringed and whose
undertaking has its registered office in a non-member country,
but whose mark is registered in a Member State of the                                            (2000/C 149/46)
European Community?
(1) OJ 1999 L 27, p. 1.                                                 An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities, represented by Richard Wain-
                                                                        wright, Principal Legal Adviser, of its Legal Service, and
                                                                        Panayiotis Panayiotopoulos, a national civil service Expert on
                                                                        secondment to the Legal Service, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of
                                                                        the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Gerichtshof by order of that court of 15 February 2000                  The Commission of the European Communities claims that
in the case of Rudolf Gabriel against Schlank & Schick                  the Court should:
                             GmbH
                         (Case C-96/00)                                 — declare that, by failing to adopt or, in the alternative,
                                                                            to communicate to the Commission, within the period
                                                                            prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
                        (2000/C 149/45)                                     visions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                            92/13/EEC (1) of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof                   application of Community rules on the procurement
(Supreme Court, Austria) of 15 February 2000, received at the               procedures of entities operating in the water, energy,
Court Registry on 13 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in                transport and telecommunications sectors, the Hellenic
the case of Rudolf Gabriel v Schlank & Schick GmbH on the                   Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty
following questions:                                                        and that directive.
For the purposes of the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction             — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
Matters of 27 September 1968, does the provision in Para-
graph 5j of the Austrian Consumer Protection Law (Konsumen-
tenschutzgesetz (KSchG), BGBl 1979/140, in the version of
Art I, para. 2 of the Austrian Distance Selling Law (Fernabsatz-        Pleas in law and main arguments
Gesetz), BGBl I 1999/185), which entitles certain consumers
to claim from undertakings in the courts prizes ostensibly won
by them where the undertakings send (or have sent) them                 The binding nature of the third paragraph of Articles 249 and
prize notifications or other similar communications worded              10 EC (ex Articles 189 and 5 of the EC Treaty) requires
so as to give the impression that they have won a particular            Member States to take the measures necessary to transpose
prize, constitute:                                                      directives into their legal system before the expiry of the period
                                                                        prescribed for that purpose and to notify those measures to
(1) a contractual claim under Article 13(3);                            the Commission immediately. When the relevant time-limit
                                                                        expired on 1 January 1998 the Hellenic Republic had not
     or                                                                 notified the Commission of measures transposing the directive
                                                                        in question into national law.
(2) a contractual claim under Article 5(1);
     or
                                                                        (1) OJ L 76 of 23.3.1992, p. 14.
(3) a claim in respect of a tort, delict or quasi-delict under
     Article 5(3)


title: Case C-131/03 P: Appeal brought on 25 March 2003 by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco International Inc., and Japan Tobacco, Inc., against the judgment delivered on 15 January 2003 by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01 between Philip Morris International, Inc., R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco International Inc. and Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission of the European Communities, supported by European Parliament, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic, Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
C 146/22               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        21.6.2003
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                        International Inc., and Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities, supported by European Parlia-
                                                                          ment, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Federal Republic of
                                                                          Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands,
                                                                          was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Under the second paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty                   Communities on 25 March 2003 by R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
establishing the European Community, regulations are binding              Holdings, Inc., established in Winston-Salem, North Carolina
in their entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.           (United States), RJR Acquisition Corp., established in Wilming-
                                                                          ton, Delaware (United States), R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Com-
In the present case, Article 91 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94               pany, established in Winston-Salem, North Carolina (United
imposes an obligation on Member States to designate, in                   States), R. J. Reynolds Tobacco International Inc., established
accordance with their own national legal systems, national                in Winston-Salem, North Carolina (United States) and Japan
courts and tribunals of first and second instance with jurisdic-          Tobacco, Inc., established in Tokyo (Japan), represented by
tion in matters of infringement and validity of Community                 O. W. Brouwer, lawyer, and P. Lomas, solicitor.
trade marks, and to forward to the Commission a list
of designated Community trade mark courts and tribunals
indicating their names and territorial jurisdiction. The final
date for compliance with these obligations was 15 March
1997.
                                                                          The Appellants claim that the Court should:
The Commission cannot but find that the Italian Republic has
not yet forwarded to it the above information and has not thus
far designated any Community trade mark court or tribunal,                —    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
thereby also failing to meet its obligations under Article 91(1)               15 January 2003, whereby it:
of that regulation.
( 1) OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1.
                                                                               i)    dismissed the applications as inadmissible;
                                                                               ii)   ordered the applicants to bear their own costs and,
Appeal brought on 25 March 2003 by R.J. Reynolds                                     jointly and severally, the costs incurred by the
Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R. J. Rey-                            Commission; and
nolds Tobacco Company, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Inter-
national Inc., and Japan Tobacco, Inc., against the judg-
ment delivered on 15 January 2003 by the Second
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First                           iii) ordered the interveners to bear their own costs.
Instance of the European Communities in joined cases
T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01
between Philip Morris International, Inc., R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R. J. Rey-                 —    declare their applications for annulment admissible on
nolds Tobacco Company, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Inter-                           the basis that the contested decisions were manifestly
national Inc. and Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission                          illegal and to give final judgment in the matter; alterna-
of the European Communities, supported by European                             tively
Parliament, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian
Republic, Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Fed-
eral Republic of Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of
                         the Netherlands                                  —    declare their applications for annulment admissible and
                                                                               refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for
                                                                               judgment on the merits; alternatively
                        (Case C-131/03 P)
                         (2003/C 146/37)
                                                                          —    refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for
                                                                               consideration of the issue of admissibility joined to the
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 January 2003                    merits and for judgment accordingly;
by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases
T-377/00 (1), T-379/00 (2), T-380/00 ( 2), T-260/01 (3) and
T-272/01 (4) between Philip Morris International, Inc.,                   —    order the Commission to pay the costs pursuant to
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp.,                  Article 69, second paragraph of the Rules of Procedure
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco                         of the Court of Justice.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.6.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 146/23
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
                                                                          of Genoa-Voltri by order of that Court of 10 March 2003
                                                                          in the case of Viacom Outdoor S.r.l. against Société
                                                                                GIOTTO Immobilier S.a.r.l.
The Appellants submit that the Court of First Instance erred in
law in so far as it held that, as a matter of principle, a decision
to commence proceedings cannot be considered to be a
decision which is open to challenge. Apart from the judgment
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in case                                       (Case C-134/03)
60/81, IMB v. Commission, which establishes admissibility
where there are ‘exceptional circumstances’, the case-law
clearly demonstrates that admissibility of new classes or types
of application is determined on a case by case basis.                                             (2003/C 146/38)
The Court of First Instance misinterpreted the case-law when
it found that no legal effects ensued from the loss of the
possibility of obtaining a preliminary ruling from the Court of
Justice of the European Communities as to the Commission’s
competence to commence proceedings in a third state in an
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
attempt to recover allegedly unpaid customs duties and VAT.
                                                                          European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace
In concluding that commencing proceedings in a third country,
                                                                          (Magistrate) of Genoa-Voltri of 10 March 2003, received at the
rather than in the Community, did not have legal effects, the
                                                                          Court Registry on 25 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
Court of First Instance also misinterpreted the case-law that
                                                                          the case of Viacom Outdoor S.r.l. against Société GIOTTO
provides that where a definitive choice has been made for one
                                                                          Immobilier S.a.r.l. on the following questions:
procedure over another, the decision embodying that choice
has legal effects for the purpose of Article 230.
                                                                          1.   Is the entrusting to a public undertaking (municipalities)
                                                                               of the management of a tax and duties such as those
The Court of First Instance also failed to recognise that by the               described above, on a market which constitutes a substan-
contested decisions the Commission took a definitive position                  tial part of the common market and on which the public
as to its competence as a matter of EC law, which constitutes                  undertaking holds a dominant position inconsistent with:
legal effects within the meaning of the established case-law.
                                                                               a)    the application of Article 86 EC in conjunction with
The Appellants also submit that the Court of First Instance                          Article 82 EC;
was incorrect to proceed on the basis that the District Court
could remedy the lack of a preliminary reference mechanism
in the United States by applying Community law itself, that by
declaring the application inadmissible, the Court of First                     b)    the application of Article 86 EC in conjunction with
Instance violated their right to effective judicial protection and                   Article 49 EC.
that it misapplied and misinterpreted Community case-law on
the contestability of manifestly illegal measures.
                                                                          2.   Is the payment to that public undertaking of the income
                                                                               from the tax and charges in question inconsistent with:
Finally, it is submitted that, in concluding that any disputes as
to the Commission’s competence to commence proceedings
in the United States could be determined by the US District                    a)    the application of Article 86 EC in conjunction with
Court, the Court of First Instance adopted a solution that was                       Article 82 EC;
contrary to Article 292 and the system of the Treaties.
                                                                               b)    the application of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC, as
( 1) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 23.                                                      unlawful State aid (not notified) and incompatible
( 2) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 24.                                                      with the common market.
( 3) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 39.
( 4) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 45.


title: Case T-201/05: Action brought on 18 May 2005 by José María Perez Santander against Council of the European Union

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/32

         Action brought on 18 May 2005 by José María Perez Santander against Council of the European Union
   (Case T-201/05)
   (2005/C 193/55)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 May 2005 by José María Perez Santander, residing in Ixelles (Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annual the classification in grade granted to the applicant in his recruitment decision, in so far as that classification is based on Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations;

               —

               in consequence, reconstitute the applicant's career (including recognition of his experience in the grade thus amended, his rights to promotion and his pension entitlement), on the basis of the grade in which he should have been appointed as stated in the competition notice following which he was placed on the reserve list for recruitment, either in the grade appearing in that competition notice, or, corresponding to its equivalent according to the classification in the new Staff Regulations (and the appropriate step in accordance with the rules applicable before 1 May 2004), on the basis of the decision appointing him;

               —

               award the applicant default interest based on the rate applied by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operation, during the period concerned, plus 2 points, on all the sums corresponding to the difference between the salary corresponding to his classification in his recruitment decision and the classification to which he should have been entitled up to the date of the decision properly classifying him in grade;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those invoked in Case T-58/95, Centeno Mediavilla and Others v Commission
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 93 of 16.4.2005, p. 38.


title: Case C-104/15: Action brought on 3 March 2015 — European Commission v Romania

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/29

         Action brought on 3 March 2015 — European Commission v Romania
   (Case C-104/15)
   (2015/C 146/35)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae, D. Loma-Osorio Lerena, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Romania

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not adopting the necessary measures to prevent pollution from dust particles coming from the Bosneag pond extension belonging to the copper and zinc mining operations of Moldomin at Moldova Noua, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 and Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC (1);

               —

               Order Romania to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The action brought by the European Commission against Romania concerns the failure by the Romanian authorities to adopt the measures necessary to prevent pollution from dust particles coming from one of the ponds of a copper mining operation.
   The Commission submits that, by not adopting the measures necessary to prevent the spread of dust particles from the surface of the Bosneag pond extension, which damage human health and the environment, Romania has not complied with Article 4 and Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/21/EC. The Commission considers that Romania must ensure the protection of human health and the environment from any negative effect whatsoever — even though it enjoys a certain degree of flexibility as to the specific measures that it must adopt — if the requirements defined in Article 4 of Directive 2006/21/EC are to be respected. The Commission also considers that Article 13(2) of the directive imposes a specific obligation on the competent authority, that is to say, that authority must ensure that the operator takes adequate measures to prevent or reduce the dust.
   The Commission relies in these proceedings on the report of the competent Romanian authority for environmental protection, on information from the press and on the responses provided by Romania in the pre-litigation proceedings, all of which go to show that, in the area of Moldova Noua, there is significant pollution from dust coming from the Bosneag pond extension which, particularly at times when the wind is stronger, has a harmful effect on the health of the local inhabitants and the environment.
   Furthermore, the Commission argues that Romania cannot rely on purely internal situations, such as the privatisation of Moldomin and the future environmental obligations of a buyer, in order to justify non-fulfilment of the obligations under the directive.

      (1)  OJ L 102, p. 15.


title: Case C-47/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 16 December 1966 in the case of Hasan Gevin v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit — Kindergeldkasse

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


title: Case C-53/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 — JAS Jet Air Service France (SARL) v European Commission (Appeal — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Community Customs Code — Article 239 — Community Customs Code Implementing Regulation — Article 905 — Importation of jean trousers from the United States — Import duties — Decision declaring the refund of those duties unjustified — No ‘special situation’)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/14

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 — JAS Jet Air Service France (SARL) v European Commission
   (Case C-53/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Community Customs Code - Article 239 - Community Customs Code Implementing Regulation - Article 905 - Importation of jean trousers from the United States - Import duties - Decision declaring the refund of those duties unjustified - No ‘special situation’))
   (2015/C 236/19)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: JAS Jet Air Service France (SARL) (represented by: T. Gallois and E. Dereviankine, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros, B.-R. Killmann and C. Soulay, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders JAS Jet Air Service France SARL to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: Case T-126/00: Action brought on 10 May 2000 by Confederazione Generale dell'Industria Italiana (Confindustria) and Others against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 192/24                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         8.7.2000
Action brought on 9 May 2000 by Federazione Associa-                       — reduction of 25 % of the charges payable by all undertak-
zioni Imprese Distribuzione (FAID — Federdistribuzione)                         ings not located in the Mezzogiorno;
and Others against Commission of the European Com-
                            munities                                       — reduction of 40 % for undertakings in the commercial and
                                                                                tourist sectors which have fewer than 15 employees and
                                                                                are not located in the Mezzogiorno.
                         (Case T-124/00)
                                                                           In support of their pleas, the applicants contend:
                                                                           — That in this case no State aid is involved since the aim of
                         (2000/C 192/45)
                                                                                the assistance in question is to compensate for a pre-
                                                                                existing structural disadvantage, so as to allow all economic
                                                                                operators to enjoy the benefits of the same competitive
                                                                                situation.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           — Infringement of the principle audi alteram partem and of
                                                                                the rights of the defence;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 9 May               — Infringement of Article 87(3)(a) and (c) EC in so far as the
2000 by Federazione Associazioni Imprese Distribuzione                          contested decision describes the assistance in question as
(FAID — Federdistribuzione), SEFIM SpA, Esselunga SpA,                          aid for employment, without taking account of its positive
Supermercati Alimentari SMA Srl, Auchan Ipermercati SpA,                        effects in the areas involved.
Società Italiana Bricolage - SIB SpA, Smafin Srl, Rinascente
SpA, GS SpA and Gruppo COIN SpA, represented by Marco                      — That the contested decision is based on misapplication of
Sica, of the Milan Bar, with an address for service in Luxem-                   the Guidelines for aid to employment. (2) In any event, the
bourg at the chambers of Alain Lorang, 2 Rue des Dahlias.                       aim of creating new work posts is effectively secured.
                                                                           — Breach of the requirement of stating reasons and of the
                                                                                principle audi alteram partem.
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:
                                                                           — The decision does not make it clear how the Commission
                                                                                applied the de minimis rule under which assistance of up
— Annul the contested decision wholly or in part;                               to ECU 100 000 over three years does not count as State
                                                                                aid.
— In the alternative, annul the contested decision to the
     extent to which it requires recovery of the aid already paid;         (1) OJ L 42 of 15.2.2000, p. 1.
                                                                           (2) OJ C 334 of 12.12.1995, p. 4.
— In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.
Contentions and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                           Action brought on 10 May 2000 by Confederazione
                                                                           Generale dell’Industria Italiana (Confindustria) and Others
The present action is directed against the Commission decision                 against Commission of the European Communities
of 11 May 1999 C (1999) 1364 def ‘concerning aid granted
by Italy to promote employment’ (1) according to which                                               (Case T-126/00)
certain contributions provided for by Italian Laws Nos 863/84,
407/90, 169/91, 451/94 and 196/97, relating to the engage-                                          (2000/C 192/46)
ment of workers under training and work-experience contracts
and the conversion of such contracts into open-ended con-
tracts are to be regarded as aid incompatible with the common                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
market and are to be recovered from the recipients thereof.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 10 May
The legislation in question provides:                                      2000 by Confederazione Generale dell’Industria Italiana (Con-
                                                                           findustria), Confederazione Generale Italiana del Commercio,
                                                                           del Turismo, dei Servizi e delle PMI (Confcommercio), Confarti-
— for total exemption from social charges for recruitment                  gianato, Associazione Bancaria Italiana (ABI), Associazone
     under training and employment contracts for small-scale               Nazionale fra le Imprese Assicuratrici and Banco di Napoli
     craft industries, wherever located within national territory,         SpA, represented by Prof. Aurelio Pappalardo, of the Trapani
     and for undertakings located in the Mezzogiorno or other              Bar, and Massimo Merola, of the Rome Bar, with an address
     areas of Italy where unemployment exceeds the national                for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Alain Lorang,
     average;                                                              51 Rue Albert I.
 ---pagebreak--- 8.7.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 192/25
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:            Pleas in law and main arguments
— Annul Commission Decision 2000/128/EC of 11 May                        Trademark concerned:          Three dimensional trademark in
     1999 of 11 May 1999 concerning aid granted by Italy to                                            the form of tablets — Application
     promote employment published in Official Journal of the                                           No 949610
     European Communities L 42 of 15 February 2000;
                                                                         Product or Service:           Products in Class 3 of the Nice
— In the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 2 of the operative                                          Agreement (in particular, washing
     part of the Decision, to the extent to which they do not                                          and bleaching preparations for
     exclude from the declaration of incompatibility with                                              laundry use; cleaning prep-
     the common market other types of financial aid for                                                arations, preparations for the
     employment which are shown in the present proceedings                                             washing of dishes, soaps, per-
     to be compatible with the common market; consequently,                                            fumery, essential oils, cosmetics,
     annul in respect of the same types of financial aid for                                           hair lotions, dentifrices)
     employment Article 3 of the operative part of the Decision
     in so far as it improperly requires recovery of the aid             Contested        decision     Refusal of registration by the
     already paid;                                                       before the Board of           examiner
                                                                         Appeal:
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Grounds for appeal:           Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                                                                                Regulation 40/94.
Contentions and main arguments adduced in support
The contentions and principal arguments are similar to those
relied on in Case T-124/00 FAID Federdistribuzione and
Others v Commission.
                                                                         Action brought on 12 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble
                                                                         Company against the Office for Harmonization in the
                                                                                Internal Market
                                                                                (Case T-129/00)
Action brought on 12 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble                                            (2000/C 192/48)
Company against the Office for Harmonization in the
                         Internal Market
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                         (Case T-128/00)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                         (2000/C 192/47)                                 Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 12 May 2000 by The Procter &
                                                                         Gamble Company, represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and
                                                                         G. Kuipers of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, The Hague,
                   (Language of the case: English)                       Netherlands.
An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 May 2000 by The Procter &                     — annul Decision R508/1999-1 of the First Board of Appeal
Gamble Company, represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and                       of the OHIM of 8 March 2000, in so far as it finds that the
G. Kuipers of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, The Hague,                      Mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in
Netherlands.                                                                 Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              — order the OHIM to pay the costs.
— annul Decision R506/1999-1 of the First Board of Appeal
     of the OHIM of 8 March 2000, in so far as it finds that the         Pleas in law and main arguments
     Mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in
     Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and                         Trademark condensed:          Three dimensional trademark in
                                                                                the form of tablets — Application
— order the OHIM to pay the costs.                                                                     No 949990


title: Action brought on 19 January 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-18/96)

text:
No C 77/8                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                           16 . 3 . 96
       the constituents referred to in paragraph 1 ( a ) of              Travail ( Labour Court ), Nivelles, of 16 January 1996 ,
       Section I of Annex I ( for example, in the case of water          which was received at the Court Registry on 22 January
       with a low sodium content)?                                       1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Vito Casano
                                                                         against ( 1 ) Institut National d'Assurance Maladie Invalidite
3 . How are the expressions 'properties favourable to                    and ( 2 ) Union Nationale des Mutualites Libres on the
       health' in paragraph 2 of Section I of Annex I and                following questions:
       'certain effects' in paragraph 1 ( a ) of Section I ( see also
       point 1.4.1 of Section II of Annex I ) to be differentiated
       from one another ?                                                1 . Where an authority in a Member State does not comply
                                                                             with Article 51 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
(') OJ No L 229, 1980, p. 1 .                                                No 1408/71 on the application of social security
                                                                             schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
                                                                             and to members of their families moving within the
                                                                             Community ( ] ), is the adjustment to the entitlement of
                                                                             the invalid worker affected to take effect from the date
Action brought on 19 January 1996 by the Commission of                       on which the invalidity benefit first became payable or
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                              from the date falling two years prior to the worker's
                                Belgium                                      application for rectification, as laid down by the
                                                                             national legislation of the Member State concerned, in
                           ( Case C- 18/96 )
                                                                             this case, Article 106 of the Law of 9 August 1963
                             ( 96/C 77/ 15 )                                 setting up and organizing a scheme for compulsory
                                                                             insurance against sickness and invalidity ?
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
19 January 1996 by the Commission of the European                        2 . Is it for the national legislation of each Member State to
Communities, representend by Hendrik van Lier and                            determine the limitation period applicable to claims by
Jean-Francis Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address for                 migrant workers for invalidity pensions ?
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                    (') OJ, English Special Edition 1971(11 ), p. 416 .
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should :
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
      period the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
      necessary to comply with Council Directive
      91/338/EEC ( 1 ) of 18 June 1991 relating to restrictions          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Social Security
      on the marketing and use of certain dangerous
                                                                         Commissioner, by decision of 17 January 1996, in the case
      substances and preparations, the Kingdom of Belgium                 of Kelvin Albert Snares against the Adjudication Officer
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty,
                                                                                ( Case C-20/96 )
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                                                    ( 96/C 77/ 17
Pleas in law and main arguments:
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those               European Communities by a decision of the Social Security
in Case C-5/96 (2); the time limit for transposition expired             Commissioner of 17 January 1996 , which was received at
on 31 December 1992 .                                                    the Court Registry on 22 January 1996 , for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling in the case of Kelvin Albert Snares against the
O OJ No L 186 , 12 . 7. 1991 , p . 59 .                                  Adjudication Officer, on the following questions:
( 2 ) See Case C-5/96 above .
                                                                         1 . Is the effect of the terms of Articles 4 ( 2 ) ( a ) and 10 ( a ) of
                                                                             Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
                                                                             on the application of social security schemes to
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du                        employed persons and their families moving within the
Travail, Nivelles, by judgment of that court of 16 January                   Community (*), as inserted by Regulation ( EEC ) No
1996 in the case of Vito Casano v. ( 1 ) Institut National                   1247/92 ( 2 ) with effect from 1 June 1992 , to remove
d'Assurance Maladie Invalidite and ( 2 ) Union Nationale des                 from the scope of Article 4 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No
                          Mutualites Libres                                  1408/71 a benefit which prior to 1 June 1992 would
                                                                             have been accepted, in the case of a person who by
                           ( Case C- 19/96 )                                 reason of previous occupational activity was or had
                               96/C 77/16                                    been covered by the social security legislation of the
                                                                             relevant Member State, as falling within the scope of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       Article 4(1 ), with the consequence that a person who
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du                          after 1 June 1992 becomes entitled to such a benefit


               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/21

         Removal from the register of Case C-247/03 (1)

   (2005/C 106/46)

      (Language of the case: Greek)

   By order of 19 November 2004, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-247/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 184 of 02.08.2003.


title: Case C-217/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Public works contracts — Directive 71/305/EEC — Meaning and definition of a public works contract — Failure which has produced all its effects)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/12

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-217/06) (1)

   (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Public works contracts - Directive 71/305/EEC - Meaning and definition of a public works contract - Failure which has produced all its effects)
   (2007/C 297/17)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia and S. Fiorentino, agents.)
   Re:
   Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 3 and 12 of Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1971 L 185, p. 5) — Award, after private negotiation and without publication of a notice of invitation to tender, of a works contract for the performance of works specified in resolution No 48 of the Municipal Council of Stintino of 14 December 1989, in particular: ‘the design and execution of works relating to the technical and structural modernisation, maintenance and completion of the water supply and drainage networks, the road network, and structures and facilities serving the centre of population, the external villages and the tourist zones of the territory of the commune of Stintino, and including the cleaning and decontamination of the coast and tourist centres of that commune’
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               declares that by allowing execution of at least one of the operations entrusted by the commune of Stintino to the company Maresar Soc. Cons arl under the Agreement No 7/91 signed on 2 October 1991 and additional measures subsequently agreed by the same parties, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, and in particular Articles 3 and 12 thereof;

               2.

               orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178 of 29.7.2006.


title: Case C-357/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Bremen by order of 22 May 2000 in the case of Fikri Akdenk v Stadtgemeinde Bremen

text:
C 355/10              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9.12.2000
2.   Conversely, does a national provision which, in                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
     implementing a ‘harmonising’ directive, omits the above-          richt Düsseldorf by order of that court of 2 August 2000
     mentioned requirements, conform with Community law?               in the case of Buchhändler-Vereinigung GmbH against
                                                                       Saur Verlag GmbH & Co. KG and Die Deutsche Bibliothek
                                                                                (Case C-358/00)
(1) OJ L 141 of 11.6.1993, p. 27.
                                                                                (2000/C 355/18)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
                                                                       Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court, Düsseldorf) of 2 August
                                                                       2000, received at the Court Registry on 27 September 2000,
                                                                       for a preliminary ruling in the case of Buchhändler-Vereinigung
                                                                       GmbH against Saur Verlag GmbH & Co. KG and Die Deutsche
                                                                       Bibliothek on the following question concerning the interpret-
                                                                       ation of Articles 1 and 8 of Council Directive 97/52/EEC (1) of
                                                                       18 June 1992 concerning the coordination of procedures for
                                                                       the award of public service contracts, amended by Directive
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-               97/52/EC (2) of 13 October 1997 (hereinafter ‘the Service
richt Bremen by order of 22 May 2000 in the case of Fikri              Directive’):
              Akdenk v Stadtgemeinde Bremen
                                                                       Does the Service Directive also apply to a contract
                        (Case C-357/00)                                (a)   by which the contracting authority confers on the
                                                                             contractor the exclusive publishing rights (right of repro-
                                                                             duction and distribution) in a bibliography compiled by
                                                                             it — in this case the German National Bibliography,
                        (2000/C 355/17)
                                                                       (b) which requires the contractor to reproduce and market
                                                                             the bibliography on his own account and to pay the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       contracting authority a reasonable fee on the basis of the
European Communities by order of 22 May 2000 by the                          publishing proceeds for each copy sold, and
Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court) Bremen, which was
received at the Court Registry on 27 September 2000, for a             (c)   in which the contracting authority reserves rights of
preliminary ruling in the case of Fikri Akdenk v Stadtgemeinde               supervision and codetermination with regard to the
Bremen on the following questions:                                           reproduction and distribution of the bibliography?
1.   Is a family member within the meaning of Article 7, first         (1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
     paragraph, first indent, of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-          (2) OJ L 328 of 28.11.1997, p. 1.
     Turkey Association Council on the development of the
     Association (Decision No 1/80) entitled to have access to
     the labour market even in the case where, after satisfying
     the conditions set out in the first paragraph of Article 7
     of Decision No 1/80, he has been given a custodial
     sentence of seven years and six months, of which he shall
     have to serve at least one half or two thirds?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the
                                                                       Bundesgerichtshof of 30 March 2000 in the case of Land
                                                                       Hessen against G. Ricordi & Co. Bühnen- und Musikverlag
2.   Does a right of access to the labour market also exist                                          GmbH
     under the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80,
     notwithstanding a long-term custodial sentence, in the
     case where the member of the family of the Turkish                                         (Case C-360/00)
     worker is entitled only to respond to any offer of
     employment subject to the priority to be given to workers                                  (2000/C 355/19)
     from the Member States (Article 7, first paragraph, first
     indent)?                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal
                                                                       Court of Justice) by order of 30 March 2000, received at the
                                                                       Court Registry on 28 September 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                       in the case of Land Hessen against G. Ricordi & Co. Bühnen-
                                                                       und Musikverlag GmbH on the following question: