title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 October 2000 in Case T-154/98: Asia Motor France SA and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Obligations regarding the investigation of complaints — Legality of grounds for rejection — Manifest error of assessment — Article 176 of the EC Treaty (now Article 233 EC) — Admissibility of a new plea in law)

text:
C 108/16                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.4.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 26 October 2000
                                                                                of 13 December 2000
in Case T-154/98: Asia Motor France SA and Others v
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                         in Case T-69/99: Danish Satellite TV (DSTV) A/S (Eurotica
                                                                           Rendez-Vous Television) v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
(Competition — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81
EC) — Obligations regarding the investigation of complaints
— Legality of grounds for rejection — Manifest error of
assessment — Article 176 of the EC Treaty (now Article 233                 (‘Television Without Frontiers’ directive — National restric-
           EC) — Admissibility of a new plea in law)                       tions on the retransmission across frontiers of television
                                                                           broadcasts — Finding by the Commission that those restric-
                                                                           tions are compatible with Community law — Action for
                                                                                annulment — Admissibility)
                          (2001/C 108/26)
                                                                                (2001/C 108/27)
                     (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-154/98: Asia Motor France SA, established in
Chemille (France), Jean-Michel Cesbron, carrying on business                                  (Language of the case: French)
under the name of JMC Automobiles, residing in Chemille,
Monin Automobiles SA, established in Bourg-de-Péage
(France), Europe Auto Service (EAS) SA, established in Livange
(Luxembourg), all represented by J.-C. Fourgoux, of the Brussels           In Case T-69/99: Danish Satellite TV (DSTV) A/S (Eurotica
and Paris Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg at               Rendez-Vous Television), established in Frederiksberg, Den-
the Chambers of P. Schiltz, 4 Rue Béatrix de Bourbon,                      mark, represented by J.-P. Hordies and A. Maqua, of the
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                    Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
represented by G. Marenco, and L. Guérin and, subsequently,                office of Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, against Com-
by G. Marenco and F. Siredey-Garnier) — application for                    mission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Banks and
annulment of the Commission’s decision of 15 July 1998                     M. Wolfcarius), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
rejecting the complaints lodged by the applicants as to the                and Northern Ireland (Agents: R.Plender QC and R.V. Magrill)
existence of cartel practices alleged to be contrary to Article 85         — application for annulment of the act of the Commission of
of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — the Court of First                  22 December 1998, addressed to the United Kingdom and
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,              notified to the applicant on 28 December 1998 — the Court
President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal           of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  President, A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; G. Herzig,
26 October 2000, in which it:                                              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                           13 December 2000, in which it:
1.    Dismisses as inadmissible the claim that the Court should take
      formal note that the applicants reserve the right to bring an        1.    Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
      action in damages against the Commission;
                                                                           2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action as unfounded;                        the Commission;
3.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and, jointly and
      severally, to pay the costs of the Commission, including those       3.    Orders the United Kingdom to bear its own costs.
      reserved in the order of 21 May 1999.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.


24 . 8 . 96          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 247/3
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           Swearing of the oath by a new member of the Court of First Instance
                                                            ( 96/C 247/03 )
            Marc Jaeger, appointed judge of the Court of First Instance by decision of the representatives of the
            Governments of the Member States of the European Communities on 8 July 1 996 ( 1 ), took the oath
            before the Court of Justice on 11 July 1996 .
            (■) OJ No L 178 , 17 . 7 . 1996 , p . 32 .
                      Designation of a President of Chamber and assignment of Judges to Chambers
                                                            ( 96/C 247/04 )
            The Court of First Instance has adopted the following decision in consequence of the departure from
            office of Judge Schintgen , President of Chamber, and the taking-up of office by Judge Jaeger on
            11 July 1996 :
            Judge Garcia-Valdecasas is designated President of the Fifth Chamber and of the Fifth Chamber,
            Extended Composition, and Judge Jaeger is assigned to the Fourth Chamber, Extended
            Composition, the Fifth Chamber and the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition , for the period
            from 12 July 1996 to 30 September 1996 .
            Consequently, the composition of the Chambers decided on 19 September 1995 ( OJ No C 274 of
            19 October 1 995 , p. 1 1 ), as amended on 1 1 January 1996 ( OJ No C 46 of 1 7 February 1996 , p. 18 ),
            is altered as follows :
            Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition:
            Mr Lenaerts , President of Chamber, Ms Lindh , Mr Azizi , Mr Cooke and Mr Jaeger, Judges;
            Fifth Chamber:
            Mr Garcia-Valdecasas, President of Chamber, Mr Azizi and Mr Jaeger, Judges;
            Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition:
            Mr Garcia-Valdecasas, President of Chamber, Ms Tiili , Mr Azizi , Mr Moura Ramos and Mr Jaeger,
            Judges .
            For cases in which the written procedure was completed and a hearing in the oral procedure was held
            or fixed before 12 July 1996 by those Chambers as previously constituted , but without Judge
            Schintgen, President of Chamber, they shall continue to sit with the same composition as
            before .


title: Joined Cases T-57/04 and T-71/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2007 — Budějovický Budvar and Anheuser-Busch v OHIM (AB GENUINE Budweiser KING OF BEERS) ((Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative trade mark including the terms AB , genuine , Budweiser , king of beers — Earlier international word mark BUDWEISER — Appellations of origin registered under the Lisbon Agreement — Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Partial acceptance and partial rejection of the opposition)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/19

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2007 — Budějovický Budvar and Anheuser-Busch v OHIM (AB GENUINE Budweiser KING OF BEERS)
   (Joined Cases T-57/04 and T-71/04) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative trade mark including the terms ‘AB’, ‘genuine’, ‘Budweiser’, ‘king of beers’ - Earlier international word mark BUDWEISER - Appellations of origin registered under the Lisbon Agreement - Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Partial acceptance and partial rejection of the opposition)
   (2007/C 170/35)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant in Case T-57/04: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (České Budějovice (Czech Republic)) (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum, lawyer)

      Applicant in Case T-71/04: Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (Saint Louis, Missouri, United States) (represented by: initially V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, A. Pohlmann, D. Ohlgart and B. Goebel, and subsequently V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, D. Ohlgart and B. Goebel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and I. de Medrano Caballero, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (in Case T-57/04) and Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (in Case T-71/04)
   Re:
   Action bought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2003 (Cases R 1024/2001-2 and R 1000/2001-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik and Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               In Case T-57/04:

                           —

                           dismisses the application;

                           —

                           orders Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik to pay the costs.

               2.

               In Case T-71/04:

                           —

                           holds that there is no longer any need to adjudicate in the case;

                           —

                           orders Anheuser-Busch, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.


C 3/50                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                   5.1.2002
      Removal from the Register of Case T-247/99 (1)                            Removal from the Register of Case T-225/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 3/86)                                                              (2002/C 3/89)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                          (Language of the case: German)
By order of 20 September 2001, the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    By order of 13 September 2001, the President of the Fifth
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-247/99, Flavia Angeletti and André Van Meuter v                    Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
Commission of the European Communities.                                   Case T-225/00: Andrea Gaul v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
      Removal from the Register of Case T-167/00 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the Register of Case T-55/01 (1)
                         (2002/C 3/87)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/90)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
By order of 14 September 2001, the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                  By order of 12 September 2001, the President of the Chamber
Case T-167/00: Jaume Costa v Commission of the European                   of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Communities.                                                              has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-55/01,
                                                                          Asahi Vet SA v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
      Removal from the Register of Case T-192/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 3/88)                                          Removal from the Register of Case T-112/01 (1)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                                   (2002/C 3/91)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 10 September 2001, the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                          By order of 10 September 2001, the President of the Fifth
Case T-192/00: Sabrina Tesoka v Commission of the European
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities.
                                                                          Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                          Case T-112/01: Ursula Klug v Council of the European Union.
(1) OJ C 273 of 23.9.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.


title: Case T-276/07: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Martin v Parliament (Rules concerning expenses and allowances for Members of the European Parliament — Recovery of sums wrongly paid)

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Martin v Parliament
   (Case T-276/07) (1)

   (Rules concerning expenses and allowances for Members of the European Parliament - Recovery of sums wrongly paid)
   2011/C 38/13
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Hans-Peter Martin (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: É. Boigelot, T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented: initially by H. Krück, D. Moore and C. Karamarcos, and subsequently by H. Krück, D. Moore and M. Windisch, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 10 May 2007 and, if necessary, the debit note of the Director-General for Finance of the Parliament, taken pursuant to the decision of 10 May 2007, and, where applicable, any decision implementing the aforementioned measures which might arise in the course of the proceedings.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Mr Hans-Peter Martin to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211 of 8.9.2007.


C 118/26              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.4.2001
        Removal from the register of Case C-8/00 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-102/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/58)                                                     (2001/C 118/61)
By order of 19 October 2000 the President of the Court of             By order of 27 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-8/00: Commission of the European          from the register of Case C-102/99: (reference for a preliminary
Communities v Ireland.                                                ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Venezia):
                                                                      Veneta Assicurazioni SpA. v Ufficio del Registro di Padova.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-331/99 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-421/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/59)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/62)
By order of 25 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 27 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-331/99: Commission of the                 Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v France.                                        from the register of Case C-421/99: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Italy.
(1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-95/00 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-469/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/60)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/63)
By order of 26 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 27 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-95/00: [reference for a preliminary       Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: O’Neill          from the register of Case C-469/99: Commission of the
Incorporated v JOMO s.r.o.                                            European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.


5.9.98                EN              Official Journal of the European Communities                              C 278/33
       Removal from the register of Case C-21/98 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-123/96 (1)
                        (98/C 278/63)                                                    (98/C 278/67)
By order of 8 May 1998 the President of the Court of
                                                                 By order of 19 May 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                 Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-21/98: Commission of
                                                                 removal from the register of Case C-123/96: Kingdom of
the European Communities v. Ireland.
                                                                 Spain v. Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-277/96 (1)
                        (98/C 278/64)                                  Removal from the register of Case C-199/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 278/68)
By order of 14 May 1998 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered
the removal from the register of Case C-277/96 (reference        By order of 19 May 1998 the President of the Court of
for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landes-             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
arbeitsgericht): Hans-Jörg Dick v. EB-Schulungs-Gesell-          removal from the register of Case C-199/96: Kingdom of
schaft mbH (in liquidation).                                     Spain v. Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.                                        (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
       Removal from the register of Case C-40/97 (1)
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-299/97 (1)
                        (98/C 278/65)
                                                                                (98/C 278/69)
By order of 14 May 1998 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                  By order of 20 May 1998 the President of the Court of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of Case C-40/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling              removal from the register of Case C-299/97: Commission
from the Sozialgericht, Hamburg): Peter Michael Jordy            of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
v. Techniker Krankenkasse and Techniker Krankenkasse
Pflegeversicherung.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
(1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-282/97 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-11/96 (1)                                     (98/C 278/70)
                        (98/C 278/66)
                                                                 By order of 25 May 1998 the President of the Court of
By order of 19 May 1998 the President of the Court of            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              removal from the register of Case C-282/97: Commission
removal from the register of Case C-11/96: Kingdom of            of the European Communities v. French Republic.
Spain v. Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
(1) OJ C 95, 30.3.1996.


title: Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-165/96, C-166/96, C-167/96, C-168/96 and C-169/96

text:
No C 199/20              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 6 . 97
            Removal from the register of C-6/96 (')                                Removal from the register of C-34/96 (')
                             ( 97/C 199/47)                                                       ( 97/C 199/51
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                  By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-6/96 ( Reference for a                       from the register of Case C-34/96 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                     preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
against Sandro Gallotti .                                                against Maria Paolantoni .
H OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .                                             H OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .
             Removal from the register of C-7/96 (')                     Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-165/96,
                             ( 97/C 199/48 )                                   C-166/96, C-167/96, C-168/96 and C-169/96 (M
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/52 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  By order of 13 March 1997 the President of the Fifth
from the register of Case C-7/96 ( Reference for a                       Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                     Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Joined Cases C-165/96, C-166/96 , C-167/96, C-168/96
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             and C-169/96 : Commission of the European Communities
against Francesco Palermo.                                               v. Portuguese Republic .
(') OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .                                           (') OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 .
            Removal from the register of C-24/96 (')                               Removal from the register of C-189/96 (')
                              ( 97/C 199/49                                                        ( 97/C 199/53 )
 By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                 By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-24/96 ( Reference for a                      from the register of Case C-189/96 ( Reference for a
 preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                    preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
 Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
 Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
 against Vittorio Iannilli .                                              against Rosalinda Marchionne .
 ( 1 ) OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .                                        O OJ No C 210, 20 . 7 . 1996 .
            Removal from the register of C-25/96 H                                 Removal from the register of C- 190/96 (')
                              ( 97/C 199/50 )                                                      ( 97/C 199/54 )
 By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                  By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-25/96 ( Reference for a                      from the register of Case C-190/96 ( Reference for a
 preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                     preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
 Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
 Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
 against Francesco Cannizzaro .                                           against Amerigo Alari .
  H OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .                                           O OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 .


title: Case C-6/02: Action brought on 10 January 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 56/10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         2.3.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                (b) Do Articles 10 and 11 of Directive 85/384/EEC — which
Düsseldorf by order of that court of 19 December 2001                       state that a qualification as a civil engineer is to be treated
in the case of Privat-Molkerei Borgmann GmbH & Co. KG                       as equivalent to that of architect for the purposes of
                against Hauptzollamt Bochum                                 entitlement to provide services in the professional field of
                                                                            architecture — require a Member State not to exclude
                                                                            from entitlement to provide the services in question
                         (Case C-1/02)
                                                                            persons who have successfully completed in that Member
                                                                            State a course of studies such as those completed by
                        (2002/C 56/18)                                      those holding civil engineering qualifications in Italy?
                                                                       (c)  On the assumption that there is substantive similarity
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      between the course of studies and professional training
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Düssel-                  pursued by architects and by civil engineers, does the
dorf (Finance Court Düsseldorf) of 19 December 2001, which                  principle of equality, as a general principle of Community
was received at the Court Registry on 7 January 2002, for a                 law, require in any event that persons holding qualifi-
preliminary ruling in the case of Privat-Molkerei Borgmann                  cations in civil engineering be also allowed to pursue
GmbH & Co. KG against Hauptzollamt Bochum on the                            activities reserved for architects?
following question:
Does the penalty regulation in the second paragraph of Article         (1) OJ L 223 of 10.6.1985, p. 15.
3(2)of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March
1993 (OJ EC L 57, p. 12) as amended pursuant to Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1001/98 of 13 May 1998 (OJ EC L 142,
p. 22) contravene the proportionality rule in cases where the
time-limit is exceeded only marginally and moreover without
fault?
                                                                       Action brought on 10 January 2002 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the French Republic
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
                                                                                (Case C-6/02)
Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto by order of
24 October 2001 in the case of Alessandro Mosconi and
the Ordine Degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia against                                         (2002/C 56/20)
Soprintendenza per i Beni Ambientali e Architittonici di
   Venezia — Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali
                         (Case C-3/02)
                                                                       An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 January
                        (2002/C 56/19)                                 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by H. van Lier and J. Adda, acting as Agents, with
                                                                       an address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
tivo Regionale per il Veneto (Regional Administrative Court,           The Commission of the European Communities claims that
Venice) of 24 October 2001, received at the Court Registry on          the Court should:
8 January 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Alessandro Mosconi and the Ordine Degli Ingegneri di Verona
                                                                       —    declare that, by maintaining the national legal protection
e Provincia (Order of Engineers of the City and Province of
                                                                            afforded to the designations ‘Salaisons d’Auvergne’, ‘Label
Verona) against Soprintendenza per i Beni Ambientali e
                                                                            régional Savoie’, ‘Label régional Franche-Comté’, ‘Label
Architittonici di Venezia — Ministero per i Beni e le Attività
                                                                            régional Corse’, ‘Label régional Midi-Pyrénées’, ‘Label
Culturali (Authority responsible for the environmental and
                                                                            régional Normandie’, ‘Label régional Nord-Pas-de-Calais’,
architectural heritage of Venice — Ministry of Cultural Assets
                                                                            ‘Label régional Ardennes de France’, ‘Label régional
and Activities) on the following questions
                                                                            Limousin’, ‘Label régional Languedoc-Roussillon’, and
                                                                            ‘Label régional Lorraine’, the French Republic has failed
(a)   Must Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 (1)                 to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;
      be interpreted as meaning that, precisely because it lays
      down rules of minimum harmonisation, its provisions
      must be applied to purely internal situations?                   —    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.3.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 56/11
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        ments for taxing capital gains in the case of transfer of tax
                                                                       residence, such as result from Article 167 a of the General Tax
The national provisions establishing the label ‘Salaisons d’Au-        Code, as inserted by Article 24 of the 1999 Finance Law of
vergne’ and the regional labels may affect the free movement           30 December 1998, in the version in force at the date of the
of goods between Member States, particularly inasmuch as               challenged decree.
those provisions favour the marketing of goods of national
origin, to the disadvantage of imported goods. The application
of those provisions creates and maintains, in itself, a difference
between the treatment afforded to those two categories of
goods. Outside the material scope of Council Regulation
No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications               Action brought on 28 January 2002 by the Commission
and designations of origin for agricultural products and               of the European Communities against the French Republic
foodstuffs (1), the concept of ‘indications of source’ approved
by the Court of Justice is capable of justifying an obstacle to                                 (Case C-16/02)
the free movement of goods only if it serves to protect
the significant reputation acquired by a product amongst                                        (2002/C 56/22)
consumers or a particular foodstuff originating in a certain
region. In the Commission’s view, the label ‘Salaisons d’Auverg-
ne’ and the regional labels do not constitute ‘indications of          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
source’ within the meaning of the Court’s case-law, inasmuch           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 January
as they are attached not to a product or to a particular               2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
foodstuff but to groups of products the special reputation of          represented by M. Nolin, acting as Agent, with an address for
which is, however, neither alleged nor established.                    service in Luxembourg.
(1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should:
                                                                       —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                             administrative measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                             with Commission Directive 1999/51/EC of 26 May 1999
                                                                             adapting to technical progress for the fifth time Annex I
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Conseil
                                                                             to Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximations
d’État section du contentieux, by order of 14 December
                                                                             of the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions of
2002 in the case of Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant against
                                                                             the Member States relating to restrictions on the market-
  Ministère de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie
                                                                             ing and use of certain dangerous substances and prep-
                                                                             arations (tin, PCP and cadmium) (1), or at any rate by
                         (Case C-9/02)                                       failing to notify those measures to the Commission, the
                                                                             French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                        (2002/C 56/21)                                       the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 2(1)
                                                                             of that directive;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 —     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
European Communities by order of the French Conseil d’État,
section du contentieux (Council of State, ruling in a conten-
tious matter), received at the Court Registry on 14 January            Pleas in law and main arguments
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Hughes de
Lasteyrie du Saillant against Ministère de l’Économie, des            The obligation imposed on Member States by the third
Finances et de l’Industrie (Ministry for the Economy, Finance          paragraph of Article 249 EC is such as to require them to
and Industry) on the following question:                               comply with the time-limits laid down in directives. The time-
Does the principle of freedom of establishment laid down in            limit in the present case expired on 29 February 2000 but
Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43          France has not adopted the requisite measures.
EC) preclude the introduction by a Member State, for the
purpose of preventing the risk of tax avoidance, of arrange-           (1) OJ L 142 of 5 June 1999, p. 22.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 2004 in Case C-284/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht): Land Brandenburg v Ursula Sass (Social policy — Male and female workers — Article 141 EC — Equal pay — Directive 76/207/EEC — Equal treatment — Maternity leave — Passage to a higher salary grade — Failure to take account of the whole of a period of maternity leave taken under the legislation of the former German Democratic Republic)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 18 November 2004
   in Case C-284/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht): Land Brandenburg v Ursula Sass (1)

   (Social policy - Male and female workers - Article 141 EC - Equal pay - Directive 76/207/EEC - Equal treatment - Maternity leave - Passage to a higher salary grade - Failure to take account of the whole of a period of maternity leave taken under the legislation of the former German Democratic Republic)
   (2005/C 6/10)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-284/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany), made by decision of 21 March 2002, received at the Court on 2 August 2002, in the proceedings between Land Brandenburg and Ursula Sass — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and S. von Bahr, Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 November 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions precludes a collective agreement such as the Bundes-Angestelltentarifvertrag-Ost (collective agreement for civil servants on a contractual basis in the public sector in East Germany) from excluding from a qualifying period the part of the period for which a female worker took maternity leave, under the legislation of the former German Democratic Republic, which exceeds the protected period of eight weeks provided for by the legislation of the Federal Republic of Germany to which that agreement refers, where the objectives and purpose of both periods of leave are the protection of women as regards pregnancy and maternity, as provided for by Article 2(3) of that directive. It is for the national court to ascertain whether those conditions are fulfilled.

      (1)  OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 June 2002 In Joined Cases C-430/99 and C-431/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State): Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane, Rotterdam district v Sea-Land Service Inc. (C-430/99), Nedlloyd Lĳnen BV (C-431/99) (Maritime transport — Freedom to provide services — Vessel traffic services system)

text:
27.7.2002               EN                           Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 180/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       of: S. von Bahr, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting as
                                                                             President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and M. Wathe-
                                                                             let, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                    Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 June
                                                                             2002, in which it:
                          of 13 June 2002                                    1.    dismisses the application;
                                                                             2.    orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
in Case C-382/99: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
(State aid — Commission notice on the de minimis rule for
State aid — Service stations — Excise duties — Likelihood
of overlapping aid — Legitimate expectations — Principle
       of legal certainty — Obligation to state reasons)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (2002/C 180/01)                                                             (Sixth Chamber)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                      of 13 June 2002
                                                                             In Joined Cases C-430/99 and C-431/99 (Reference for a
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       preliminary ruling from the Raad van State): Inspecteur
                   in the European Court Reports)                            van de Belastingdienst Douane, Rotterdam district v Sea-
                                                                             Land Service Inc. (C-430/99), Nedlloyd Lijnen BV (C-431/
                                                                                99) (1)
                                                                             (Maritime transport — Freedom to provide services — Vessel
In Case C-382/99: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:                                              traffic services system)
M. Fierstra) v Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: G. Rozet and H. M. H. Speyart, assisted by J. C. M. van                                        (2002/C 180/02)
der Beek, and L. Hancher) — application for partial annulment
of Commission’s decision 1999/705/EC of 20 July 1999                                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
concerning State aid granted by the Netherlands with regard
to 633 Netherlands petrol stations in the region bordering
Germany (OJ 1999 L 280, p. 87), in so far as it finds that the               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
subsidies granted to certain categories of service station                                      in the European Court Reports)
are incompatible with the common market and with the
functioning of the Agreement on the European Economic Area
of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3) and orders recovery of the                 In Joined Cases C-430/99 and C-431/99: Reference to the
aid already granted — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                    Court under Article 234 EC by the Raad van State, Netherlands,
 ---pagebreak--- C 180/2                    EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                             27.7.2002
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                 Abad): Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt
court between Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane,                         the measures necessary to transpose correctly the obligation
Rotterdam district and Sea-Land Service Inc. (C-430/99),                        arising from Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Council Directive 85/
Nedlloyd Lijnen BV (C-431/99), on the interpretation of                         337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of
Articles 92, 59 and 56 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                  certain public and private projects on the environment
Articles 87 EC, 49 EC and 46 EC) and Council Regulation                         (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), in conjunction with Annex II thereto,
(EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the                               and by maintaining in force legislation which, in breach of
principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport                  those provisions, does not enable an assessment of the
between Member States and between Member States and third                       environmental effects to be carried out in the whole of the
countries (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),                     national territory in respect of certain classes of project listed
composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-                       in Annex II to that directive and, in a considerable part of that
mann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and                           territory, in respect of many other classes of project listed in
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;                       the same annex, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                       obligations under that directive, the Court (Sixth Chamber),
judgment on 13 June 2002, in which it has ruled:                                composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber,
                                                                                J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges; L.A. Geel-
As regards situations falling within the scope of Council Regulation            hoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
(EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 June 2002, in which it:
freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member
States and between Member States and third countries, that                      1.     Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
regulation, in conjunction with Articles 56 and 59 of the EC Treaty                    all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary
(now, after amendment, Articles 46 EC and 49 EC), does not preclude                    to comply with Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Council Directive 85/
a vessel traffic services system, such as the ‘verkeersbegeleidingssysteem’            337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of
system at issue in the main proceedings, which requires the payment                    certain public and private projects on the environment, in
of a tariff by sea-going vessels longer than 41 metres which                           conjunction with Annex II thereto, the Kingdom of Spain has
participate in that system on a mandatory basis, while other vessels,                  failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
such as inland waterway vessels, are exempt from that tariff, in so far
as there is in fact a correlation between the amount of that tariff and         2.     Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
the cost of the service from which those sea-going vessels benefit.
                                                                                (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                             (Sixth Chamber)
                             of 13 June 2002                                                                   of 6 June 2002
in Case C-474/99: Commission of the European Communi-                           in Case C-80/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                      ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)                               the Bundesgerichtshof): Italian Leather SpA v WECO
                                                                                Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain                     (Brussels Convention — Article 27(3) — Irreconcilability —
public and private projects on the environment — Incomplete                     Enforcement procedures in the State where enforcement is
                               transposition)                                                                      sought)
                             (2002/C 180/03)                                                                  (2002/C 180/04)
                      (Language of the case: Spanish)                                                 (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                      in the European Court Reports)                                                  in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-474/99, Commission of the European Communities                        In Case C-80/00: Reference to the Court, under the Protocol
(Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Dı́az                  of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of


title: Case T-129/99: Action brought on 26 May 1999 by the Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Gasteizko Industria Lurra S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 226/42              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.8.1999
Pleas in law relied on:           infringement of Article 44 of             Article 10(1) of the Decree, 5 % as a strategic project
                                  Regulation (EC) No 40/94                  amount and 5 % as an amount in respect of an investment
                                                                            project creating significant employment, in accordance
                                  infringement of Article 63(2)             with Article 10(2) of the Decree and, finally, 5 % in
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94               accordance with Article 10(4) of the Decree;
                                  infringement of Articles 74(1)
                                  and 76(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)       — violation of the right of the Comunidad Autónoma del
                                  No 40/94.                                 Paı́s Vasco to a fair hearing, inasmuch as the Comunidad
                                                                            had no knowledge, prior to the communication of the
                                                                            contested decision, of the infringement attributed to it by
                                                                            the Commission with regard to Article 7(d) of the Decree;
                                                                        — erroneous interpretation of Article 87(3)(c) EC (ex Article
                                                                            92(3)(c)). In advancing that plea, on which they rely in the
                                                                            alternative in the event that the Court declares the existence
                                                                            of State aid, the applicants maintain that the Commission
Action brought on 26 May 1999 by the Comunidad                              should in any event have characterised that aid as regional
Autónoma del Paı́s Vasco and Gasteizko Industria Lurra                     aid withir the meaning of the abovementioned provisions.
S.A. against the Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties
                        (Case T-129/99)
                        (1999/C 226/74)
                                                                        Action brought on 27 May 1999 by David Crabbe against
                                                                        European Centre for the Development of Vocational
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                                             Training (CEDEFOP)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                        (Case T-130/99)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 May 1999 by the Comunidad
Autónoma del Paı́s Vasco and Gasteizko Industria Lurra S.A.,                                   (1999/C 226/75)
both established in Vitoria, Spain, represented by Fernando
Pombo Garcı́a, Emiliano Garayar Gutiérrez and Juan Alonso
Berberena, lawyers, with an address for service c/o Gómez-                                (Language of the case: French)
Acebo & Pombo 99/101 Rue de la Loi, 1040 Brussels.
                                                                        An action against European Centre for the Development of
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             Vocational Training was brought before the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 27 May 1999 by
— annul the Commission’s decision of 24 February 1999                   David Crabbe, residing at Thessaloniki (Greece), represented
    concerning State aid granted by Spain to Daewoo Elec-               by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liège Bar, with an address for
    tronics Manufacturing España (DEMESA);                             service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson S.à r.l., 30 Rue de
                                                                        Cessange.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — annul the defendant’s decision to reject his administrative
                                                                            complaint of 27 October 1998;
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case T-127/99 Territorio Histórico de Alava,               — annul the defendant’s decision to reject his request of
Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación Foral de Alava v                        26 June 1998;
Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicants plead, in particular:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
— alleged contravention of the principles of legal certainty
    and of the protection of legitimate expectations, inasmuch
    as DEMESA, correctly interpreting the criteria laid down in         Until 1 September 1997, the applicant was an official in Grade
    Article 10 of the Decree governing the EKINEM pro-                  LA 6 of the European Parliament working as a translator as
    gramme, as notified to the Commission, was entitled, in             part of the Language Service provided for in Article 5(2) of the
    the applicants’ view, to receive a 25 % non-repayable               Staff Regulations. He applied for the post of English-language
    subsidy, comprising a 10 % tranche in accordance with               translator advertised by CEDEFOP.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 1997 in Case C-177/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Antwerpen): Belgian State v. Banque Indosuez and Others and European Community (Dumping - Sheets or plates, of iron or steel, originating in Yugoslavia - Declaration of independence of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - Legal certainty)

text:
22 . 11 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the .European Communities                                     C 357/ 11
     only that it recognizes the rights of doctors established            The anti-dumping duties imposed pursuant to Article 1 of
     in practice there, under Council Directive 75/362/EEC                Commission Decision No 2131 /88/ECSC of 18 July 1988
     of 16 June 1975 concerning the mutual recognition of                 — imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
     diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal                  certain sheets and plates, of iron or steel, originating in
     qualifications in medicine, including measures to                    Yugoslavia and definitively collecting the provisional anti
     facilitate the effective exercise of the right of                    dumping duty imposed on those imports — on imports of
     establishment and freedom to provide services, before                certain steel products 'originating in Yugoslavia ' also
     1 January 1995 to practise general medicine under its                apply to products of that kind manufactured by a
     national social security scheme, even if they have no                producer/exporter who had been established in the
     specific training in general medical practice and have               Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but was in fact
     not established a service relationship with that State 's            — by reason of the Former Yugoslav Republic of
     social security scheme.                                              Macedonia 's declaration of independence — situated in
                                                                          the FYROM at the time when the products in question
                                                                          were imported.
(') OJ C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .
                                                                          (>) OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( Sixth Chamber)                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 16 October 1997                                                         (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 October 1997
in Case C- 177/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Antwerpen): Belgian                    in Case C-304/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
State v. Banque Indosuez and Others and European                          the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Liguria):
                             Community (')                                Hera SpA v. Unità Sanitaria Locale No 3 — Genovese
                                                                                ( USL ) and Impresa Romagnoli SpA (*)
(Dumping — Sheets or plates, of iron or steel, originating
in Yugoslavia — Declaration of independence of the                        (Directive     93/37/EEC — Public procurement                —
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia — Legal                                                  Abnormally low tenders)
                                certainty)
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/20 )
                             ( 97/C 357/ 19 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                            (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-304/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                          of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale Amministrativo
In Case C- 177/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177              Regionale ( Regional Administrative Court), Liguria ( Italy ),
of the EC Treaty from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg                     for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
( Court of First Instance ), Antwerp ( Belgium ), for a                   that court between Hera SpA and Unita Sanitaria Locale
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                 No 3 — Genovese ( USL ) and Impresa Romagnoli SpA —
court between Belgian State and Banque Indosuez and                       on the interpretation of Article 30 (4 ) of Council Directive
Others and European Community — on the interpretation                     93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination
of Commission Decision No 2131/88/ECSC of 18 July                         of procedures for the award of public works contracts ( OJ
1988 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports                   L 199, 9 . 8 . 1983 , p. 54 ) — the Court ( Fourth Chamber),
of certain sheets and plates, of iron or steel, originating in            composed of: H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), President of
Yugoslavia and definitively collecting the provisional anti              the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and J. L. Murray, Judges;
dumping duty imposed on those imports ( OJ L 188 , 19 . 7.                C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
1988 , p. 14 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of:                given a judgment on 16 October 1997, in which it has
                                                                          ruled :
H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen,
G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and G.
Hirsch, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 October 1997, in                    Article 30 (4) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June
which it has ruled :                                                      1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the


title: Action brought on 6 July 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-238/95)

text:
No C 229/ 14             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2 . 9 . 95
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Action brought on 6 July 1995 by the Commission of the
                                                                              European Communities against the Italian Republic
The obligatory nature of Article 189 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty                                        Case C-237/95 )
means that Member States must transpose directives into                                              ( 95/C 229/29 )
national law within the period laid down by those directives .
The necessary measures had not been adopted by the French
Republic when the period fixed by Article 44 of Directive               An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
92/50/EEC expired on 1 July 1993 .                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 July
                                                                        1995 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Laura Pignataro and Maria Condou
f 1 ) OJ No L 209 , 24 . 7 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                        Durande, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                        Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de             — declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
Douai by judgment of 27 January 1995 , rectified by                            obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt or to
judgment of 3 1 May 1 995 , in the case of AGS Assedic Pas de                  communicate the laws, regulations and administrative
Calais against Francois Dumon and Mr Froment, liquidator                       provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                 of Etablissements Pierre Gilson                               89/369/EEC ( J ) of 8 June 1989 on the prevention of air
                                                                               pollution from new municipal waste-incineration plants
                            Case C-235 /95 )                                   and Council Directive 89/429/EEC ( 2 ) of 21 June 1989
                             ( 95/C 229/28 )                                   on the reduction of air pollution from existing municipal
                                                                               waste-incineration plants,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour d'Appel                  — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
 ( Court of Appeal ), Douai of 27 January 1995 , rectified by
judgment of 31 May 1995 , in the case of AGS Assedic Pasde              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Calais v. Francois Dumon and Mr Froment, liquidator of
Etablissements Pierre Gilson, which was received at the
 Court Registry on the following questions :                            Article 1 89 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a directive
                                                                        is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member
                                                                         State to which it is addressed, means that Member States are
 1 . Is Article 4 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of                     under an obligation to comply with the time limits
       20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of              prescribed in directives for their transposition . On the
       the Member States relating to the protection of                   expiry of the relevant prescribed period on 1 December
       employees in the event of the insolvency of their                 1990, the Italian Republic had not adopted the provisions
       employer ( ] ) of general scope and obligatory and must it        necessary to comply with the directives referred to in the
       therefore have direct effect in national law ?                    form of order sought by the Commission .
 2 . In the absence of the Commission's having been                      0 ) OJ No L 163 , 14 . 6 . 1989 , p . 32 .
       informed in accordance with Article 1 1 of the Directive          ( 2 ) OJ No L 203 , 15 . 7. 1989 , p . 50 .
       of 20 October 1980, is Article D. 143-2 of the French
       Code du Travail ( which provides that the maximum
       amount of the guarantee provided for in Article
       L. 143-1 1-8 of the Code du Travail is set at thirteen times
       the monthly ceiling used to calculate contributions to
       the unemployment insurance scheme where the claims
       result from provisions of legislation or regulations or           Action brought on 6 July 1995 by the Commission of the
       from stipulations of a collective agreement and arose                   European Communities against the Italian Republic
       under a contract of employment which was concluded at
       a date more than six months before the decision
                                                                                ( Case C-238/95 )
       declaring a judicial composition, and that in other cases                                      ( 95/C 229/30 )
       the amount of the guarantee is limited to four times
       the aforementioned ceiling) compatible with that
       Directive ?
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 July
                                                                          1995 by the Commission of the European Communities,
  (') OJ No L 283 , 20 . 10 . 1980, p . 23 .                              represented by Laura Pignataro and Maria Condou
                                                                          Durande, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                          Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- 2 . 9 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 229/ 15
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— declare that, by failing to adopt, or in any event by                The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
     failing to communicate, the laws, regulations and                 in Case C-234/95 ( 2 ); the period prescribed for
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with                implementation of the Directive expired on 1 July 1992 .
     Commission Directive 93/67/EEC (*) of 20 July 1993
     laying down the principles for assessment of risks to man         (') OJ No L 189 , 20 . 7. 1990 , p. 17 .
     and    the   environment      of   substances   notified  in      ( 2 ) See page 13 of this Official Journal .
     accordance with Council Directive 67/548/EEC, the
     Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     that Directive and under the EC Treaty,
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de
                                                                       Metz, by judgment of that court of 3 1 May 1 995 , in criminal
                                                                       proceedings against Remy Schmit, the civil parties claiming
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    damages being Robert Vergobbio and Salvatore La
                                                                                Mancusa
Article 1 8 9 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a directive
                                                                                Case C-240/95 )
is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the
Member State to which it is addressed, means that Member                                           95/C 229/32 )
States are under an obligation to comply with the time limits
laid down in those directives for their transposition. On the          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
expiry of the relevant prescribed period on 31 October                 European Communities by a judgment of the Cour d'Appel
1993 , the Italian Republic had not adopted the provisions             Metz ( Court of Appeal ), Metz, of 31 May 1995 , which was
necessary to comply with the directives referred to in the             received at the Court Registry on 7 July 1995 , for a
form of order sought by the Commission .                               preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against Remy
                                                                       Schmit, the civil parties claiming damages being Robert
(') OJ No L 227, 8 . 9 . 1993 , p . 9 .                                Vergobbio and Salvatore La Mancusa, on the following
                                                                       question :
                                                                       Does Article 30 of the EEC Treaty preclude national
                                                                        legislation concerning model-year dates for motor vehicles,
                                                                       which causes the administrative authorities and traders of a
                                                                        Member State to consider that, in the case of two motor
Action brought on 6 July 1995 by the Commission of the                 vehicles of the same model and make, placed on the market
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                    on the same date after 1 July , one vehicle may be held out as
                         ( Case C-239/95 )
                                                                        falling under the model-year date of the following calendar
                                                                        year whereas the other, manufactured in another Member
                            95/C 229/31 )                               State and the subject of parallel importation, may not ?
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
 6 July 1995 by the Commission of the European
 Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in               Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
 Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                   20 June 1995 , in the case of The Queen against the
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                               Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex-parte:
                                                                                Accrington Beef Co. Ltd and others
 The Commission claims that the Court should :                                                    Case C-241 /95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 229/33 )
 1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
       administrative measures needed to comply with Council            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990 ( 1 ) on the                 European Communities by an order of the High Court of
       approximation of the laws of the Member States relating          Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 20 June 1995 , which
       to active implantable medical devices, the Kingdom of             was received at the Court Registry on 10 July 1995 , for a
       Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that           preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against the
       Directive, in particular Article 16 ;                             Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex-parte :
                                                                         Accrington Beef Co. Ltd and others, on the following
 2 . in the alternative, declare that, in any event, by failing to       questions :
       inform the Commission of such measures forthwith, the
       Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations           1 . Is Article 1 ( 2 ) of Commission Regulation ( EC )
       under those provisions;                                                No 214/94 of 31 January 1994 laying down detailed
                                                                              rules for the application of the Council Regulation ( EC )
 3 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                          No 130/94 with regard to the import arrangements for


title: Action brought on 2 August 1998 by Corrado Politi against the European Training Foundation (Case T-124/98)

text:
C 312/18             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.10.98
Secondly, the applicant claims that there has been an              to be a member of the temporary staff, became for the
infrignement of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. The                   first time an official as such, or it relied on Articles 31 and
prerequisites for a prohibition of the Bertelsmann/Kirch/          32 of the Staff Regulations and should state the reasons
Premiere/DF1/DSF concentration were not met, since the             for its refusal to attach any weight whatever to the
concentration would not alter the market position. The             professional experience gained by the applicant over a
concentration in BetaDigital was also wrongly prohibited,          period of nearly 13 years prior to his entry into service as
and the prohibition of the concentration in BetaResearch           an official.
could not be justified. That prohibition was not supported
by the necessary statement of reasons pursuant to                  The applicant advances the following pleas in support of
Article 190 of the EC Treaty.                                      his claims:
Thirdly, the applicant argues that the Commission should           Ð infringement of Articles 4, 7, 31 and 32 of the Staff
have allowed the concentration at least after the                       Regulations, in that, according to Community case-
participants had declared themselves willing to give                    law, Article 32 of the Staff Regulations governs the
undertakings which would allow and encourage                            position of staff members who become Community
competition by third parties in the areas of both                       officials for the first time following a recruitment
technology and programme rights.                                        procedure. By contrast, Article 46 of the Staff
                                                                        Regulations, on the basis of which the contested
                                                                        decision appears to have been adopted, is designed to
                                                                        govern the promotion of Community staff members
                                                                        who already possess the status of official,
Action brought on 2 August 1998 by Claude Bochu                    Ð breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    reasons, as laid down in Article 25 of the Staff
                       (Case T-123/98)                                  Regulations. The need to state such reasons is all the
                                                                        greater in the present case since the recruitment
                        (98/C 312/44)                                   procedure relating to the post in issue was initially
                                                                        open to grade A 4 officials and the defendant thus
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        implicitly accepted that the specific requirements of
                                                                        the post in question justified the recruitment of an
An action against the Commission of the European                        official of that grade.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 2 August 1998
                                                                   Lastly, the applicant asserts that there has been in the
by Claude Bochu, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                   present case a manifest error of assessment, breach of the
Jean-NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and
                                                                   duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                                                                   officials and violation of the principles of good
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire
                                                                   management and sound administration. He states in that
Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                   regard that at no time during the procedure did either the
                                                                   Classification Committee or DG IX contact DG XI in
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        order to obtain information concerning the specific needs
                                                                   of the service, with the result that the appointing authority
Ð annul the Commission's decision to appoint the                   possessed no information whatever enabling it to examine
    applicant a probationer official, in so far as that            whether the specific needs of the service required the
    appointment classifies him in grade A 7, step 1,               recruitment of the applicant in a grade other than the
                                                                   lowest grade. Moreover, the appointing authority ignored
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs, including those            the fact that he possessed over seven years' post-university
    incurred by the applicant in defending his interests           experience and the level of responsibility of the duties
    during the pre-litigation stage.                               which had been entrusted to him in the Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, a former grade B 3 member of the
temporary staff who, having passed internal competition
COM/A/16/93, was appointed to category A, contests the             Action brought on 2 August 1998 by Corrado Politi
decision of the appointing authority to classify him in                      against the European Training Foundation
grade A 7, step 1.
                                                                                (Case T-124/98)
He observes, first, that the contested decision refers in its                               (98/C 312/45)
preamble to Articles 1, 2, 4, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 34 of the
Staff Regulations. Thus it did not officially refer to the                          (Language of the case: French)
third paragraph of Article 46 of the Staff Regulations,
which is nevertheless the only provision applicable to             An action against the European Training Foundation was
officials who, having passed a competition, move up to a           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
higher category. In his view, therefore, either the                Communities on 2 August 1998 by Corrado Politi,
Commission relied on that provision and should state the           residing in Turin (Italy), represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,
reasons for applying it to the applicant, who, upon ceasing        Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels
 ---pagebreak--- 10.10.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 312/19
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                   Ð annul the decision to deduct from the applicant's
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             salary the sum of BFR 160 750 in respect of
                                                                        transport/mission expenses (FO)',
Ð annul the decision not to renew his contract as a
    member of the temporary staff attached to the                  Ð order the Commission to repay to the applicant the
    European Training Foundation,                                       sums improperly deducted, together with interest at
                                                                        the rate of 8 % per annum from the date on which the
Ð annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                    deduction was made to the date of repayment,
    concerning the drawing-up of the applicant's
    assessment report for the period 1995 to 1997,                 Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                The applicant contests the refusal of the appointing
                                                                   authority to pay the cost of business class air travel for
The applicant, a member of the temporary staff of the              him and his family from Brussels to Los Angeles via
European Training Foundation, contests the refusal to              London, undertaken pursuant to the travel order signed by
renew his contract as a temporary staff member.                    his hierarchical superior, the Director-General of DG XXIII
                                                                   and the Director-General of Personnel and Administration,
In support of his claims, he asserts, first, that there has        as authorising officer. That refusal is based, in particular,
been a manifest error of assessment in the present case. He        on the considerations that, under the fellowship rules',
states in that regard that his assessment report is                which are more restrictive than the provisions of the Staff
incomplete and that it does not therefore reflect all the          Regulations governing missions, travel arrangements must
tasks performed by him during the term of his contract.            be made on the basis of the most economical fare
Similarly, the applicant complains in particular of the lack       available, and that the Commission is to bear the cost of
of appreciation of the considerable amount of work                 the ticket of only one child. According to the defendant,
carried out in the context of the MEDA programme, as               the provisions applicable to ordinary missions cannot be
well as the error resulting from the statement                     applied to fellowship' missions, since specific rules have
unsatisfactory' appearing under the heading relating to           been adopted in the latter regard.
performance of tasks involving the management of
financial and other resources, no task of that kind having         In support of his claims, the applicant maintains, first,
been entrusted to him. It was on the basis of such a               that the special rules applicable to fellowship' missions,
defective assessment, therefore, that the authority                adopted in the form of a simple administrative decision,
empowered to conclude contracts decided not to renew               are illegal, in that they infringe Article 11 et seq. of
the applicant's contract.                                          Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and Article 3 of the
                                                                   Guide des Missions'. He states in the alternative, with
Second, the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to         regard to that point, that the administrative provisions
provide an adequate statement of reasons, making it                relied on by the appointing authority do not require the
impossible for the Community judicature to assess                  official concerned to travel in the cheapest class but
whether it is justified.                                           merely to procure a ticket at the most economical rate for
                                                                   the class in which he is authorised to travel.
                                                                   The applicant further maintains that, according to
                                                                   Community case-law, he was entitled to rely on the
                                                                   apparent legality of the travel order, and could therefore
Action brought on 2 August 1998 by Luc Veron against               legitimately expect that all the provisions of that order
       the Commission of the European Communities                  would be upheld. In those circumstances, he must be
                                                                   regarded as having acquired a legitimate expectation that
                       (Case T-125/98)
                                                                   all the provisions contained in the relevant travel order
                         (98/C 312/46)                             would be lawful. In the alternative, the applicant claims
                                                                   that, even if the travel order was unlawfully drawn up, the
               (Language of the case: French)                      Commission failed to withdraw it within a reasonable
                                                                   time.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Lastly, the applicant also claims that there has been a
Instance of the European Communities on 2 August 1998              manifest error of assessment in the present case, together
by Luc Veron, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-           with breaches, operating to his detriment, of the principle
NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and                of equal treatment and of the right to keep the family
FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address        together as a unit.
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire
Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.