title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 October 1998 in Case T-40/95: V v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Disciplinary procedure - Removal from post - Appeal - Case referred back to the Court of First Instance - Verification of the facts - Right to a fair hearing)

text:
C 378/16              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   5.12.98
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           represented by Roberto G. Aloisio, of the Rome Bar, and
                     of 16 October 1998                             Fabrizio Massoni, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                    service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jim Penning,
in Case T-40/95: V v. Commission of the European                    31 Grand-Rue, v. Council of the European Union (Agents:
                        Communities (1)                             initially, Moyra Sims-Robertson and Marco Umberto
(Officials Ð Disciplinary procedure Ð Removal from post             Moricca, and, subsequently, Moyra Sims-Robertson and
Ð Appeal Ð Case referred back to the Court of First                 Ignacio Díez Parra) and Commission of the European
Instance Ð Verification of the facts Ð Right to a fair              Communities (Agents: Paolo Ziotti and James Macdonald
                            hearing)                                Flett) Ð Application, first, for compensation under
                                                                    Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of
                         (98/C 378/28)                              the EC Treaty for the damage allegedly suffered by the
                                                                    applicants as a result of acts and omissions of the Council
                (Language of the case: French)                      and the Commission following the outbreak of the disease
                                                                    known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy and, second,
In Case T-40/95: V, an official of the Commission of the            annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1357/96 of
European Communities, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis               8 July 1996 providing for additional payments to be made
and Thierry Demaseure, and initially by Ariane Tornel, all          in 1996 with the premiums referred to in Regulation
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                 (EEC) No 805/68 on the common organisation of the
Luxembourg at the Office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30               market in beef and veal and amending that regulation (OJ
Rue de Cessange, against Commission of the European                 L 175, 13.7.1996, p. 9) Ð the Court of First Instance
Communities (Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira) Ð                       (Fifth Chamber) composed of: J. Azizi, President, R.
application for annulment of the Commission's Decision              García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor,
of 18 January 1995 removing the applicant from his post             Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
without reduction or withdrawal of his entitlement to a             judgment on 30 September 1998, in which it:
retirement pension Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President, R. García-
Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor,
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
16 October 1998, in which it:                                       1. Dismisses as inadmissible the application for
                                                                         compensation made by Confederazione Nazionale
1. Annuls the Commission's Decision of 18 January 1995                   Coltivatori Diretti (Coldiretti);
     removing the applicant from his post;
2. Orders the Commission to bear all the costs, including
     those relating to the proceedings before the Court of
                                                                    2. Dismisses as unfounded the applications for
     Justice and the interlocutory proceedings.
                                                                         compensation made by the other applicants (the
                                                                         individual farmers);
(1) OJ C 87, 8.4.1995.
                                                                    3. Rules that there is no need to give a decision on the
                                                                         application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                No 1357/96 of 8 July 1996 providing for additional
                    of 30 September 1998                                 payments to be made in 1996 with the premiums
                                                                         referred to in Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the
in Case T-149/96: Confederazione Nazionale Coltivatori                   common organisation of the market in beef and veal
Diretti (Coldiretti) and Others v. Council of the European               and amending that regulation;
 Union and Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Common agricultural policy Ð Animal health Ð Bovine
spongiform encephalopathy Ð Action for damages Ð
Regulation (EC) No 1357/96 Ð Additional premiums Ð
Action for annulment Ð Trade association Ð                          4. Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
                          Inadmissible)
                         (98/C 378/29)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-149/96: Confederazione Nazionale Coltivatori
Diretti (Coldiretti), established in Rome, and 110 farmers,


title: Action brought on 20 March 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-82/95)

text:
No C 137/ 10              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      3 . 6 . 95
first compromise on Italy's request for a quota increase, it               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
was decided to finance a programme of abandoning
production to allow Italy to reduce its national production.               The appellant claims that substantive law was infringed
It appears strange, and symptomatic of a manifest misuse of                when Article 85 was applied ( maintenance and partitioning
powers, that the Commission should now censure Italy for                   of the various national markets by Parker Pen Ltd's policy of
not reallocating the quotas purchased for the purposes of                  referring enquiries to local subsidiaries; unequal treatment
Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 , while at the same time the                  of VIHO with regard to prices and conditions of sale ).
Council decided upon Community financing to reduce
Italian production. In the circumstances, the reallocation of
the 164 100 tonnes repurchased for the purposes of                         (») OJ No C 54 , 4 . 3 . 1995 , p . 15 .
Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 would clearly have led to a
worsening of the situation . Italy therefore preferred to
suspend the reallocation, which was in contradiction with
actual Community requirements .
(')  OJ No L  94 , 28 . 4 . 1970 , p. 13 .
(2 ) OJ No L  186 , 16 . 8 . 1972 , p. 1 .                                 Action brought on 20 March 1995 by the Commission of
(;)  OJ No L  90 , 1 . 4 . 1984 , p. 13 .                                  the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
(4 ) OJ No L  139 , 4 . 6 . 1988 , p. 12 .
                                                                                ( Case C-82/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/19 )
                                                                           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                           20 March 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
                                                                           Adviser of the Commission, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, of the
Appeal brought on 14 March 1995 by VIHO Europe BV                          Commission 's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
against the judgment delivered on 12 January 1995 by the
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-102/92 between VIHO Europe BV                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
and Commission of the European Communities, supported
                          by Parker Pen Ltd                                1 . declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
                           ( Case C-73/95 P)                                    obligations under the EEC Treaty because it omitted to
                              ( 95 /C 137/ 18 )                                 bring into force and to communicate to the Commission
                                                                               within the requisite time limit the laws , regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Council Directive 91 /308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 January                         prevention of the use of the financial system for the
1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                     purpose of money laundering ( ! );
the European Communities in Case T-102/92 between
VIHO Europe BV and the Commission of the European
Communities, supported by Parker Pen Ltd , was brought                     2 . order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
14 March 1995 by VIHO Europe BV, Maastricht                                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
(Netherlands ), represented by Gleiss Lutz Hootz Hirsch und
Partner, Rechtsanwalte, Stuttgart, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 1 1                  Article 16 of Directive 91 /308/EEC provides that the
rue Goethe, L-1637 Luxembourg.                                             Member States are to bring into force the laws , regulations
                                                                           and administrative decisions necessary to comply with the
                                                                           Directive before 1 January 1993 and that they are forthwith
                                                                           to notify the Commission thereof.
The appellant claims that the Court should :
                                                                           Having received no communication from the Greek
1 . annul the Commission decision of 30 September 1992                     Government concerning measures adopted in order to
     and set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance             incorporate the abovementioned Directive into the Greek
     of 12 January 1995 (T-102/92 ) f 1 );                                 legal order, the Commission on 12 March 1993 addressed
                                                                           to the Government in question a formal letter before action.
                                                                           Since the Greek Government did not reply to that letter, the
2.   order the Commission to bear the costs of the                         Commission on 4 July 1994 issued a reasoned opinion
     proceedings , including those incurred by the intervenor,             giving the Greek Government a period of two months
     Parker Pen Ltd .                                                      within which to comply with the Directive .
 ---pagebreak--- 3 . 6 . 95            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 137/ 11
After that period had expired with no communication from              requisite measures, the Commission decided to bring these
the Greek Government concerning the adoption of the                   proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty .
requisite measures, the Commission decided to bring these
proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty.                          H OJ No L 110 , 28 . 4 . 1992 , p . 52 .
(') OJ No L 166 , 28 . 6 . 1991 , p . 77 .
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court,
                                                                      Dublin, by order of that court of 12 February 1995 , in the
                                                                      case of Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret AS
                                                                      against Minister for Transport, Energy and
                                                                          Communications, Ireland and the Attorney General
Action brought on 20 March 1995 by the Commission of                                           ( Case C-84/95 )
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                                           ( 95/C 137/21 )
                         ( Case C-83/95 )
                           ( 95/C 137/20 )                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Supreme Court,
                                                                      Dublin, of 12 February 1995 , which was received at the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before            Court Registry on 20 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   in the case of Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret AS
20 March 1995 by the Commission of the European                       against     Minister         for    Transport, Energy       and
Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal               Communications , Ireland and the Attorney General, on the
Adviser of the Commission, with an address for service in             following question:
Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, of the
Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                Is Article 8 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 990/93 of
                                                                      26 April 1993 concerning trade between the European
                                                                      Economic Community and the Federal Republic of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          Yugoslavia ( Serbia and Montenegro ) (') to be construed as
                                                                      applying to an aircraft which is owned by an undertaking
1 . declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its       the majority or controlling interest in which is held by an
     obligations under the EEC Treaty because it omitted to           undertaking in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ( Serbia
     bring into force and to communicate to the Commission            and Montenegro ) where such aircraft has been leased by the
     within the requisite time limit the laws, regulations and        owner for a term of four years from the 22 April 1992 to an
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with               undertaking the majority or controlling interest in which is
     Council Directive 92/30/EEC of 6 April 1992 on the               not held by a person or undertaking in or operating from the
     supervision of credit institutions on a consolidated             said Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ( Serbia and
     basis ( ! );                                                     Montenegro )?
2 . order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .                    (') OJ No L 102 , 28 . 4 . 1993 , p . 14 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Article 9 of Directive 92/30/EEC provides that the Member             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and              Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 12 October 1994
administrative decisions necessary to comply with the                    in the case of John Reisdorf v. Finanzamt Koln-West
Directive before 1 January 1993 and that they are forthwith                                      Case C-85/95 )
to notify the Commission thereof.
                                                                                ( 95 /C 137/22 )
Having received no communication from the Greek
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Government concerning measures adopted in order to
                                                                      European Communities by*an order of the Bundesfinanzhof
incorporate the abovementioned Directive into the Greek               ( Federal Finance Court) of 12 October 1994 , which was
legal order, the Commission on 12 March 1993 addressed
                                                                      received at the Court Registry on 20 March 1995 , for a
to the Government in question a formal letter before action .
Since the Greek Government did not reply to that letter, the
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the case of John Reisdorf v. Finanzamt
                                                                      Koln-West, on the following questions:
Commission on 4 July 1994 issued a reasoned opinion
giving the Greek Government a period of two months                    1 . Is an invoice within the meaning of Article 18 ( 1 ) ( a ) of
within which to comply with the Directive .                                the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC ( ! ) only the original,
                                                                           that is to say, the original copy of the statement of
After that period had expired with no communication from                   account, or are carbon copies, duplicates or photocopies
the Greek Government concerning the adoption of the                        also to be regarded as being invoices in that sense ?


title: Case C-176/02 P: Appeal brought on 13 May 2002 by Laboratoire Monique Rémy against the order delivered on 26 March 2002 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-218/01 between Laboratoire Monique Rémy and Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 169/22              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13.7.2002
3.   In the event that the answer to the previous question is               has been any disturbance of trade between Member States
     in the negative: Where a connection as described in the                which can (partly) be attributed to the levy as the method
     final sentence of point 3.4.3 can be identified between                of financing the aid measure? If the answer to this
     the increase in a particular tax whose proceeds are paid               question depends on the closeness of the connection
     into the public coffers and a proposed aid measure within              between the levy and the aid measure, or on the time
     the meaning of the last sentence of Article 93(3) of the               when the revenue from the levy is actually used for the
     EC Treaty (now the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC),                 aid measure, or on other circumstances, what circum-
     must the introduction of that increase be regarded as a                stances are relevant in that regard?
     (start on the) putting into effect of that aid measure
     within the meaning of this provision? If the answer to
     this question turns on the intensity of that connection,          2.   If the prohibition on implementing the aid measure also
     what circumstances are of relevance in this respect?                   applies to the earmarked levy, can the person on whom
                                                                            the levy is imposed then, by relying on the direct effect of
4.   If the prohibition on implementation of the aid measure                Article 93(3), oppose in legal proceedings the full amount
     also relates to the tax, does a final decision by the                  levied on him or only that portion which corresponds to
     Commission declaring the aid measure compatible with                   the part of the revenue which is expected to be spent or
     the common market not mean that the unlawfulness of                    has actually been spent during the period in which the
     the tax is retroactively corrected?                                    implementation of the aid measure is or was prohibited
                                                                            under that provision?
5.   If the prohibition on implementation also relates to the
     tax, can persons on whom the tax is levied oppose such            3.   Do specific requirements arise from Community law with
     tax in law by relying on the direct effect of Article 93(3)            regard to the method of determining what portion of a
     of the EC Treaty in respect of the total amount of the tax             levy falls under the prohibition laid down in the last
     or only in respect of part thereof?                                    sentence of Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty in the case of a
                                                                            levy the revenue from which is earmarked for various
6.   In the latter case, do specific requirements stem from                 purposes for which there are also other sources of
     Community law as regards the manner in which it must                   financing in addition to the levy and which are not all
     be determined which part of the tax is covered by the                  covered by Article 93 of the EC Treaty, where no
     prohibition in the last sentence of Article 93(2) of the EC            apportionment formula is specified in the national pro-
     Treaty?                                                                vision instituting the levy? In such a case, must the
                                                                            portion of the levy which can be allocated to financing
                                                                            the aid measure falling under Article 93 of the EC Treaty
                                                                            be determined on an estimated basis according to the
                                                                            time when the levy was imposed or must it be based on
                                                                            subsequently available data relating to the total revenue
                                                                            from the levy and to the actual expenditure for each of
                                                                            the various purposes?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 8 March 2002
in the case of F. J. Pape against Ministry of Agriculture,
             Nature Management and Fisheries
                        (Case C-175/02)
                        (2002/C 169/39)
                                                                       Appeal brought on 13 May 2002 by Laboratoire Monique
                                                                       Rémy against the order delivered on 26 March 2002 by
                                                                       the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       the European Communities in Case T-218/01 between
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
                                                                       Laboratoire Monique Rémy and Commission of the Euro-
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 8 March
                                                                                pean Communities
2002, received at the Court Registry on 10 May 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of F. J. Pape against Ministry of
Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries on the follow-                                  (Case C-176/02 P)
ing questions:
1.   For so long as the implementation of an aid measure is                                   (2002/C 169/40)
     not permitted under the last sentence of Article 93(3) of
     the EC Treaty (now the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC),
     does the prohibition laid down in that provision also
     apply to the introduction of a levy the revenue from
     which is earmarked under the relevant law in part for the         An appeal against the order delivered on 26 March 2002 by
     financing of that measure, regardless of whether there            the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
 ---pagebreak--- 13.7.2002             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 169/23
European Communities in Case T-218/01 between Laboratoire              ties (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Joined Cases
Monique Rémy and Commission of the European Communi-                   T-227/99 and T-134/00 Kvaerner Warnow Werft GmbH v
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European           Commission of the European Communities was brought
Communities on 13 May 2002 by Laboratoire Monique Rémy,                before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
represented by J.F. Pupel, avocat, with an address for service in      15 May 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-
Luxembourg.                                                            ties, represented by Professor Klaus-Dieter Borchardt of its
                                                                       legal service and Viktor Kreuschitz, legal adviser to the
                                                                       European Commission, with an address for service in Luxem-
The appellant claims that the Court should:                            bourg at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of its legal service,
                                                                       Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
—     reverse the order of the Court of First Instance of
      21 March 2002;
—     suspend operation of the order in respect of Laboratoire
      Monique Rémy;                                                    The appellant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Commission to pay the costs incurred at first
      instance and in the appeal.                                      (1) set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                             28 February 2002 in Joined Cases T-227/99 and T-134/
                                                                             00 Kvaerner Warnow Werft GmbH v Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities (1);
Pleas and main arguments
—     Failure to respect the right to a fair hearing: although         (2) refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for
      Article 230 EC prescribes a period of two months for                   judgment.
      bringing an appeal, the applicant was able to make use of
      only a few days of that period because it had not been
      informed that it could appeal, as provided for by the
      internal rules of the Commission, as amended after
      November 2001.
—     Unforeseeable circumstances and force majeure: in the days
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
      following the events of 11 September 2001, postal and
      transport services put in place altogether exceptional
      security measures which gave rise to unforeseen and
      indefinite delays. In the instant case, transmittal of the       —     Incomplete appraisal of the legal background to the
      appeal documents was delayed by 6 days longer than the                 authorising decisions: when the meaning and purpose of
      usual delivery period.                                                 the capacity restriction is also regarded as a set-off in
                                                                             conjunction with the specific terms of the undertaking
                                                                             given by the Federal Government, it becomes apparent
                                                                             that, in order not to undermine the aim of the set-off for
                                                                             distortions of competition resulting from the grant of
                                                                             State aid, the capacity restriction had to refer not only to
                                                                             limits on technical capacity but also to restrictions on
                                                                             actual production levels.
Appeal brought on 15 May 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the judgment deliver-
ed on 28 February 2002 by the Court of First Instance of               —     Incorrect interpretation of the authorising decisions: the
the European Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended                           authorising decisions were based on a concept of ‘capacity
Composition) in Joined Cases T-227/99 and T-134/00                           restriction’ which covered both technical restrictions
Kvaerner Warnow Werft GmbH v Commission of the                               relating to the production plants and limits on actual
                    European Communities                                     production levels.
                       (Case C-181/02 P)
                        (2002/C 169/41)                                (1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 February
2002 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 9 March 2004 In Case C-314/03: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   9 March 2004
   In Case C-314/03: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 2000/52/EC - Transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings)
   (2004/C 94/18)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-314/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Rozet), with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner): Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt and, in any event, by failing to communicate to the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/52/EC of 26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings (OJ 2000 L 193, p. 75), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 March 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2000/52/EC of 26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 6.09.2003.


C 289/20              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 13.10.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-132/00 (1)               ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)): Kraft Jacobs
                                                                    Suchard Österreich GmbH v Eduard Mitsche and Others.
                       (2001/C 289/44)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
By order of 10 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-132/00: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-382/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/48)
                                                                    By order of 27 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                    of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
       Removal from the register of Case C-191/00 (1)               the register of Case C-382/00: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                    ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Pontevedra):
                                                                    Gardenia Abal Pombo v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad
                       (2001/C 289/45)                              Social and Tesoreria General de la Seguridad Social.
By order of 8 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice       (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-191/00: Commission of the European
Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-397/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/49)
                                                                    By order of 11 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
       Removal from the register of Case C-306/00 (1)               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-397/00: Commission of the European
                       (2001/C 289/46)                              Communities v Hellenic Republic.
By order of 30 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice       (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-306/00: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
(1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-401/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/50)
                                                                    By order of 13 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
       Removal from the register of Case C-314/00 (1)               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-401/00: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
                       (2001/C 289/47)
By order of 12 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice      (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-314/00: (reference for a preliminary


title: COMPOSITION OF THE EFTA COURT

text:
Avis juridique important

|

E1995J0427(01)

COMPOSITION OF THE EFTA COURT

Official Journal C 106 , 27/04/1995 P. 0005 - 0005

COMPOSITION OF THE EFTA COURT (95/C 106/05)1. Composition of the CourtIn consequence of the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden to the European Union on 1 January 1995, Iceland and Norway on 29 December 1994 entered into an Agreement adjusting certain Agreements between the EFTA States (the Adjustment Agreement) with effect from 1 January 1995. The number of judges was reduced to three. On 18 January 1995 Judge Bjørn Haug was elected President of the continuing EFTA Court.Pursuant to the Agreement on transitional arrangements for a period after the Accession of certain EFTA States to the European Union (the 'Transitional Arrangements Agreement`) the function of the five-member EFTA Court has been extended, principally until 30 June 1995. The Transitional Arrangements Agreement entered into force on 1 March 1995. On that day Mr Gustav Bygglin was appointed Judge of the EFTA Court to succeed Mr Leif Sevón, who resigned as a Judge on 17 January 1995 to become a Judge in the Court of Justice of the European Communities, for the duration of the Transitional Arrangements Agreement and at a public sitting took the oath prescribed in Protocol 5, Article 2 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (the ESA/Court Agreement).2. Election of the President of the Court pursuant to the Transitional Arrangements AgreementOn 1 March 1995, the Judges elected Judge Bjørn Haug as President of the EFTA Court under the Transitional Arrangements Agreement and pursuant to Article 30 of the ESA/Court Agreement.3. Appointment of the Assistant RegistrarThe EFTA Court appointed Mr. Sverre Faafeng as Assistant Registrar pursuant to Article 11 of the Rules of Procedure of the EFTA Court, to succeed Mr Heikki Kanninen.


title: Case T-595/10: Action brought on 17 December 2010 — Zenato v OHIM — Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (RIPASSA)

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/21

         Action brought on 17 December 2010 — Zenato v OHIM — Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (RIPASSA)
   (Case T-595/10)
   2011/C 72/36
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Alberto Zenato (Verona, Italy) (represented by: A. Rizzoli, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Verona, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action, together with the related annexes, admissible;

               —

               annul the decision of the Board of Appeal in so far as it annuls the contested decision and orders the costs of the appeal proceedings to be shared;

               —

               uphold, in consequence, the decision of the Opposition Division;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Alberto Zenato.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘RIPASSA’ (registration application No 106 955) for goods in Class 33.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian word mark ‘VINO DI RIPASSO’ (No 528 778) for goods in Class 33.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision annulled and case remitted to the Opposition Division.

      Pleas in law: Infringement and misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 February 2000 in Case C-12/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from Audiencia Provincial de Palma de Mallorca): Miguel Amengual Far v Juan Amengual Far (Sixth VAT Directive — Leasing or letting of immovable property — Exemptions)

text:
29.4.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 122/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      property and, by way of exception, to exempt only lettings of
                                                                             immovable property to be used for dwelling purposes.
                         (Second Chamber)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
                         of 3 February 2000
in Case C-12/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Audiencia Provincial de Palma de Mallorca): Miguel Amen-
                gual Far v Juan Amengual Far (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Sixth VAT Directive — Leasing or letting of immovable
                      property — Exemptions)                                                          (Sixth Chamber)
                           (2000/C 122/01)                                                           of 3 February 2000
                                                                             in Case C-228/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                          the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias): Charalampos Dounias v
                                                                                Ypourgou Oikonomikon (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (Taxes on imported goods — Taxable value — Articles 30
                    in the European Court Reports)                           and 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28
                                                                                EC and 90 EC) — Regulation (EEC) No 1224/80)
In Case C-12/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Audiencia Provincial                                         (2000/C 122/02)
de Palma de Mallorca, Spain, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Miguel                                         (Language of the case: Greek)
Amengual Far and Juan Amengual Far — on the interpretation
of Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC)
of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of                                       in the European Court Reports)
value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145,
p. 1) the Court (Second Chamber) composed of: R. Schintgen,                  In Case C-228/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and V. Skou-                the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Symvoulio tis
ris, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,           Epikrateias (Hellenic Republic), for a preliminary ruling in the
has given a judgment on 3 February 2000, on which it ruled:                  proceedings pending before that court between Charalampos
                                                                             Dounias and Ypourgou Oikonomikon — on the interpretation
Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of                of Articles 30 and 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                   Articles 28 EC and 90 EC) and of Council Regulation (EEC)
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added             No 1224/80 of 28 May 1980 on the valuation of goods for
tax: uniform basis of assessment allows Member States, by means of           customs purposes (OJ 1980 L 134, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth
a general rule, to subject to value added tax lettings of immovable          Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 July 1997 in Case T-187/95: R v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Sickness insurance scheme - Occupational disease - Definition of the risk - Irregularity of the opinion of the Medical Committee)

text:
6 . 9 . 97            I EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 271 / 15
          — cases referred to in Article 179 of the EC                 Wilms ) — Application for the annulment of Commission
               Treaty and Article 152 of the ECSC Treaty,              Decision C(94 ) 1410/11 of 12 July 1994, notified to the
                                                                       applicant on 27 December 1994, concerning financing
          — cases concerning the implementation of the                 from the European Social Fund for vocational training
               rules    on     competition      applicable    to       measures, — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber),
               undertakings,                                           composed of: A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M.
                                                                       Moura Ramos, Judges, Registrar, J. Palacio Gonzalez,
          — the other cases covered by paragraph 1 ( b ).              Administrator has given a judgment on 14 July 1997, in
                                                                       which it :
The First Chamber and the First Chamber, Extended
Composition, presided by the President of the Court of                  1 . Annuls Commission Decision C(94) 1410/11 of 12 July
First Instance, shall not be included in those lists every                  1994, notified to the applicant on 27 December 1994,
third time the end of a rota is reached .                                   in Case No 870840/P1 , concerning financial assistance
                                                                            from the European Social Fund in respect of training
                                                                            measures, to the extent to which it reduces the
The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate                   amounts claimed by the applicant in its final payment
from that order on the ground that cases are related or                     claim solely because the costs in question had not been
with a view to ensuring an even spread of the workload.                     allowed in the decision of approval;
Plenary session                                                        2 . For the rest, dismisses the application;
At its meeting on 2 July 1997, the Court of First Instance
                                                                       3 . Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay
                                                                            all the costs incurred by the applicant.
decided pursuant to the second sub-paragraph of
Article 32 ( 1 ) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
First Instance that where, following the designation of an             (') OJ C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
Advocate General pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules of
Procedure, there is an even number of Judges in the Court
of First Instance sitting in plenary session, the rota
established in advance in accordance with which the
President of the Court is to designate the Judge who will
not take part in the judgment of the case shall be in                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
reserve order to that in which the Judges rank according                                         of 15 July 1997
to their seniority in office under Article 6 of the Rules of
Procedure unless the Judge who would thus be designated                in Case T-187/95 : R v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( l )
is the Judge-Rapporteur. In that event, it shall be the judge
ranking immediately above him who shall be designated .                (Officials — Sickness insurance scheme — Occupational
                                                                       disease — Definition of the risk — Irregularity of the
                                                                                opinion of the Medical Committee)
                                                                                ( 97/C 271 /25 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                       In Case T-187/95 : R, the widow of an official of the
                         of 14 July 1997
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities, represented
in   Case     T-81/95 :  Interhotel   v.   Commission    of the        by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels
                    European Communities (')                           Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v.
(Social policy — European Social Fund — Assistance for                 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Julian
the financing of vocational training measures — Action
                                                                       Currall, Jean-Luc Fagnart and Francois Tulkens ) —
for annulment — Notification of decision of approval —
                                                                       application, first, for the annulment of the decision of the
Decision on the final payment claim — Legal certainty —
                                                                       Commission of 14 December 1994 rejecting the
        Legitimate expectations — Statement of reasons)                applicant's request that the illness of which her husband
                          ( 97/C 271 /24 )                             died be recognized as an occupational disease; secondly,
                                                                       for default interest; and, thirdly, for compensation — the
                                                                       Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: R.
                (Language of the case: Portuguese)                     Garcia-Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
                                                                      Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the
In Case T-81 /95 : Interhotel, Sociedade Internacional de              Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 1997, in which
Hoteis, SARL, established in Lisbon, represented by Jose               it :
Miguel Alarcao Judice, Nuno Morais Sarmento and
Gabriela Rodrigues Martins, of the Lisbon Bar, with an                 1 . annuls the decision of the Commission of 14 December
address for service at the chambers of Victor Gillen, 16                    1994 rejecting the request that the illness of the
Boulevard de la Foire v. Commission of the European                         applicant 's deceased husband be recognized as an
Communities, ( Agents : Antonio Caeiro and Giinter                          occupational disease;
 ---pagebreak--- C 271 / 16             I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                     6 . 9 . 97
2 . dismisses the claim for compensation;                              Action brought on 5 June 1997 by Societa Camar s.r.l.
                                                                            against Commission of the European Communities
3 . holds that there is no need to give a decision on the                                       (Case T-l 72/97)
     claim for default interest;
                                                                                ( 97/C 271 /27 )
4 . orders the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(') OJ C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 5 June 1997 by
                                                                       Societa Camar s.r.l ., represented by Wilma Viscardini
                                                                       Dona, assisted by Mariano Paolin and Simonetta Dona, of
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              the Padua Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                            of 3 July 1997                             at the Chambers of Ernst Arendt, Rue Mathias Hardt.
in Case T-201 /96: Smanor SA and Others v. Commission
               of the European Communities (')
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
(Failure to bring Treaty infringement proceedings —
Action for declaration of failure to act — Action for
                   damages — Inadmissibility)                          — declare, pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty, that,
                            ( 97/C 271/26 )                                 by failing to provide that the licences for importing
                                                                            bananas from non-member countries or non
                                                                           traditional ACP countries to be allocated to Camar as
                 (Language of the case: French)                             a Category B operator during 1997 and for subsequent
                                                                           years pending restoration of its normal reference
                                                                            quantities should be calculated on the basis of the
In Case T-201/96 : Smanor SA, established at Saint-Martin
                                                                            quantities which Camar marketed in 1988 , 1989 and
d'Ecublei (France), Hubert Segaud and Monique Segaud,                       1990, the Commission has breached Article 30 of
residing at Saint-Martin-d'Ecublei , represented by                         Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 and the second
Laurence Roques, of the Val de Marne Bar, 7—9 Rue du                        subparagraph of Article 40 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty,
General de Larminat, Creteil ( France ), v. Commission of
the European Communities ( Agents : Richard Wainwright
and Jean-Francis Pasquier) — application, first, for a
declaration that, in failing to bring Treaty infringement              — order the Commission, pursuant to Article 178 and
proceedings against the French Republic under Article 169                  the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty,
of the EC Treaty, the Commission has failed to act, and,                   to pay compensation for the damage which the
second, for damages for the loss flowing from that failure                 applicant has suffered by reason of the Commission's
— the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber),                           failure,
composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President; B. Vesterdorf and
A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 3 July 1997, the operative part of which is as                — order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
follows :                                                                  applicant in these proceedings .
1 . The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2 . There is no need for a ruling on the application for
     leave to intervene;                                               The applicant company is the same as that in Case T-79/
                                                                       96 ( 1 ). It should first be pointed out in this regard, for
3 . The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and             purposes of clarity, that while in Case T-79/96 Camar is
     to pay the costs of the Commission;                               seeking licences for additional imports from non-member
                                                                       countries as a Category B operator to replace the Somali
                                                                       bananas which it is unable to import vis-a-vis its
4 . The French Republic is ordered to bear the costs                   traditional quantity, the applicant is in the present action
     incurred by it in connection with the submission of its           requesting that the licences for non-member countries
    application for leave to intervene.                                normally allocated to it as a Category B operator should
                                                                       be quantified, not on the basis of the imports over three
                                                                       years as provided for under Article 4 of Commission
(') OJ C 54, 22 . 2 . 1997.
                                                                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1442/93 , but on the basis of imports
                                                                       in 1988 , 1989 and 1990 . For 1997, the three-year period
                                                                       provided for under Article 4 of that regulation consists of


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2000 in Case C-114/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Administrative d'Appel de Nancy): Roquette Frères SA v Office national interprofessionnel des céréales (ONIC) (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Cereals — Conditions for payment — Processing as a product likely to be re-imported into the Community)

text:
23.12.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 372/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Article 5(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of
                                                                             27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the
                                                                             application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products
                          (First Chamber)                                    is to be interpreted as meaning that payment of an export refund
                                                                             cannot be made conditional on production of additional evidence of
                       of 17 October 2000                                    such a kind as to show that a product which, in the non-member
                                                                             country of import, has undergone processing regarded as substantial
                                                                             in that it has been used in an irreversible manner in the manufacture
in Case C-114/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    of another product, which is itself likely to be re-exported into the
the Cour Administrative d’Appel de Nancy): Roquette                          Community, has actually been placed on the market in that country
Frères SA v Office national interprofessionnel des céréales                  in the unaltered state.
                              (ONIC) (1)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
Export refunds — Cereals — Conditions for payment —
Processing as a product likely to be re-imported into the
                            Community)
                          (2000/C 372/01)                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                of 19 October 2000
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       in Joined Cases C-15/98 and C-105/99: Italian Republic
                   in the European Court Reports)                            and Sardegna Lines — Servizi Marittimi della Sardegna
                                                                                SpA v Commission of the European Communities (1)
In Case C-114/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                (State aid — Aid from the Region of Sardinia to shipping
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour Administra-                 companies in Sardinia — Adverse effect on competition and
tive d’Appel de Nancy (Administrative Court of Appeal,                           trade between Member States — Statement of reasons)
Nancy), France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Roquette Frères SA and
                                                                                (2000/C 372/02)
Office national interprofessionnel des céréales (ONIC) — on
the interpretation of Article 5(1) of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down                                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
common detailed rules for the application of the system of
export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1)
— the Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur),                                    in the European Court Reports)
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 October 2000, in                In Joined Cases C-15/98 and C-105/99: Italian Republic
which it has ruled:                                                          (Agents: Professor U. Leanza, and P.G. Ferri) (C-15/98) and


title: Case T-103/00: Action brought on 26 April 2000 by Ramondín S.A and Ramondín Cápsulas S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.6.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 163/35
Action brought on 26 April 2000 by Ramondı́n S.A and                             Removal from the register of Case T-179/96 (1)
Ramondı́n Cápsulas S.A. against the Commission of the
                      European Communities                                                         (2000/C 163/70)
                          (Case T-103/00)                                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                          By order of 17 December 1999, the President of the First
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                          (2000/C 163/69)                                 Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                          Case T-179/96: J. Antonissen v Council of the European Union
                                                                          and Commission of the European Communities.
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                       (1) OJ C 9 of 11.1.1997.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 April 2000 by Ramondı́n S.A,
established in Logroño, Spain, and by Ramondı́n Cápsulas S.A.
established in Alava, Spain, represented by Javier Lazcano-                      Removal from the register of Case T-316/97 (1)
Iturburu Ayestaran, lawyer.
                                                                                (2000/C 163/71)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
— annul the Commission’s decision of 22 December 1999                     By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Third
     inasmuch as it declares the fiscal measures provided for in          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
     Normas Forales de Alava Nos 22/1994 and 24/1996 to be                Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
     incompatible with the common market and requires the                 Case T-316/97: Hermı́nia F. dos Santos Morais Antas v Council
     Spanish State to effect recovery in respect thereof;                 of the European Union and Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.                              (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case T-509/97 to T-517/97 (1)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case T-127/99 Diputación Foral de Alava v
Commission (1).                                                                                (2000/C 163/72)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
It is alleged, in particular, that the Commission has misused its
powers in alleging the existence of State aid with a view to              By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Third
achieving the objective of fiscal harmonisation.                          Chamber, of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                          Case T-509/97 to T-517/97: Maria de Lurdes Esteves Afonso
                                                                          and Others v Council of the European Union and Commission
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999, p. 41.                                          of the European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Länsrätt i Dalarnas Län by order of that court of 3 September 1997 in the case of Transwede Airways AB against Riksskatteverket (Case C-346/97)

text:
 C 357/22           I EN I                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          22 . 11 . 97
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           common agricultural policy. The determination of the
                                                                      maximum residue values in food for infants and small
                                                                      children primarily serves the protection of human health
— annul Council Directive 97/41/EC of 25 June 1997                    and must therefore be effected on the basis of Article 100a
    amending Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/                   of the EC Treaty.
     363/EEC and 90/642/EEC relating to the fixing of
    maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on,
    respectively, fruit and vegetables, cereals, foodstuffs on        (■) OJ L 184 , 12 . 7. 1997, p. 33 .
    animal origin, and certain products of plant origin,
    including fruit and vegetables ('), in so far as it inserts
    a provision in the second sentence of, respectively
    — Article 1 ( 3 ) of Directive 76/895/EEC,
    — Article 1 (2 ) ( d ) of Directive 86/362/EEC,                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Lansratt
                                                                      i Dalarnas Lan by order of that court of 3 September
    — Article 1 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Directive 86/363/EEC, and              1997 in the case of Transwede Airways AB against
                                                                                Riksskatteverket
    — Article 1 (2 ) (e ) of Directive 90/642/EEC,                                                ( Case C-346/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/39 )
    to the effect that the disputes settlement procedure laid
    down in Article 5a of the respective Directives is also
    to apply to food for infants and small children,
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by order of the Lansratt i
— order the Council to pay the costs.                                 Dalarnas Lan ( County Administrative Court, Dalarna ) of
                                                                      3 September 1997, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                      6 October 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Transwede Airways AB against Riksskatteverket on the
                                                                      following questions:
The German Government argues that, in so far as the
contested Directive brings food for infants and small
children within the disputes settlement procedure, the                1 . Are the taxation measures described herein, adopted
Council was not entitled to base it on Article 43 of the EC                under Law         1988:1567       on     environmental  tax on
Treaty, but could do so, at best, on the basis of                          domestic air navigation, contrary to Council Directive
Article 100a .                                                             92/81 /EEC ('the Mineral Oils Directive') ( 5 ),
                                                                           Article 8 ( 1 ) ( b ) of which provides that Member States
                                                                           are to exempt from harmonized excise duty mineral
Products falling under the Directives concerning food for                  oils supplied for use as aviation fuel except for private
infants and small children are not agricultural products for               pleasure flying ?
the purposes of the EC Treaty. The decision whether the
products in question are to be classified under Annex II to
the EC Treaty or under a tariff heading not contained in
that Annex can, the Government submits, be made only in               2 . If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, can
individual cases ono the basis of the formula for the                      Article 8 ( 1 ) ( b ) of the Mineral Oils Directive be
particular product. The products covered by Directives 91/                 regarded as having direct effect, so that the provision
321 /EEC and 96/5/EC are to a significant extent not                       can be relied on by an individual against a State
agricultural products, but products which are to be                        authority before a national court ?
classified within Chapters 19 or 21 of the Brussels
nomenclature .
                                                                      3 . If the Mineral Oils Directive is to be applied in the
                                                                           present case, can the taxation measures in question be
Even if a significant proportion of the food for infants and               split up into Community compatible and Community
small children covered by the contested Directives did fall                incompatible parts, owing to the fact that Swedish
under Annex II and thereby became part of the common                       environmental tax is calculated partly on the basis of
agricultural market, it does not necessarily follow that the               fuel consumption and partly on the basis of emissions
rules contribute to the attainment of one or more of the
                                                                           of hydrocarbons and nitric oxides ?
objectives of the common agricultural policy cited in
Article 39 of the Treaty and do not primarily serve other
purposes. In the opinion of the German Government, rules              (') Council Directive 92/81 /EEC of 19 October 1992 on the
whose primary purpose is the protection of human health                   harmonization of the structures of excise duties on mineral
must be legally based on Article 100a of the EC Treaty,                   oils ( OJ L 316 , 31 . 10 . 1992, p. 12 ).
even if they also concern products which are listed in
Annex II to the Treaty, and may possibly also contribute
to the attainment of one or more of the objectives of the


title: Case T-271/01: Action brought on 23 October 2001 by José Manuel López Cejudo against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 3/44                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.1.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     order the defendant to pay damages in the form of default
                                                                               interest on the percentage of tax abatement and the
                                                                               percentage of the expatriation allowance, at the rate of
The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2001) 1764                        6,75 % per annum from November 2000 until such time
final of 11 July 2001 declaring incompatible with the common                   as the amounts due are fully paid;
market the tax reductions arising from the tenth addendum to
Norma Foral (Regional Law) No 7/1997 of 22 December
1997, which provides for a tax credit of 45 % of the investment          —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
in new fixed material assets in excess of PTA 2 500 million
(EUR 15 025 303) made by undertakings in the Territorio
Histórico de Guipúzcoa.
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
applicant are identical with those put forward in Case
T-225/01.
                                                                         Until the adoption of the contested decision, the applicant was
                                                                         in receipt of dependent child and education allowances in
                                                                         respect of his four children. Those allowances were paid in his
                                                                         name and on his behalf to his wife, an official of the European
                                                                         Parliament whom he is in the process of divorcing. Custody of
                                                                         the children has been awarded to his wife, who receives
                                                                         alimony payments from him.
Action brought on 23 October 2001 by José Manuel
López Cejudo against Commission of the European Com-
                            munities
                                                                         In October 2000, the applicant learned from his monthly
                        (Case T-271/01)                                  salary statement that the Commission refused to grant him
                                                                         dependent child and education allowances in respect of his
                                                                         four children and, consequently, to take into account such
                         (2002/C 3/76)                                   family allowances for purposes of tax abatement and expatri-
                                                                         ation allowance as from July 1999.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         As a result of the complaint lodged in July 2001 by the
                                                                         applicant against that decision, the Commission acknowledged
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                that he shared in the actual maintenance of the children and,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               accordingly, decided to grant him, as from August 2001,
European Communities on 23 October 2001 by José Manuel                   dependent child and education allowances, with full effects
López Cejudo, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges              with regard to tax abatement and expatriation allowances, to
Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.                                    be shared with his wife, in accordance with an allocation
                                                                         formula which the defendant has to agree with the European
                                                                         Parliament. Accordingly, entitlement to the allowances in issue
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              was not granted to the applicant for the period from October
                                                                         2000 to July 2001.
—     annul the decision contained in the applicant’s salary
      statement for October 2000, refusing him entitlement to
      dependent child and education allowances in respect of
                                                                         The applicant takes the view that the contested decision:
      his four children and, consequently, to take into account
      such family allowances for purposes of tax abatement
      and expatriation allowance since July 1999, including in
                                                                         —     infringes the principle of legality, inasmuch as the
      respect of the period October 2000 to September 2001,
                                                                               Commission itself acknowledged that the arguments put
      and, in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 16 July
                                                                               forward by the applicant challenging his salary statement
      2001 taken as a result of the complaint;
                                                                               for October 2000 were well founded, but only made a
                                                                               decision regarding the future;
—     order the defendant to pay damages in the form of default
      interest on the amounts improperly withheld by the
      defendant pursuant to the salary statement for October             —     infringes the principle that reasons for decisions must be
      2000, at the rate of 6,75 % per annum from November                      stated, inasmuch as the Commission does not explain the
      2000 until such time as full payment is effected;                        reason why it limited the effects of its positive decision;
 ---pagebreak--- 5.1.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 3/45
—     infringes Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Annex VII to the Staff            Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Innova Privat-
      Regulations, Opinion No 178/87 of the board of the                 Akademie GmbH against the Commission of the European
      heads of administration of 3 December 1987 and                                               Communities
      Articles 3(4) and 4 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC)
      No 260/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying                                         (Case T-273/01)
      down the conditions and procedure for applying the
      tax for the benefit of the European Communities, as
      interpreted by the Court of Justice, inasmuch as the                                         (2002/C 3/78)
      applicant actually maintains his children and is entitled
      to have benefits, which are paid to his wife in the name                              (Language of the case: German)
      and on behalf of both parents, taken into account when
      calculating tax and calculating the expatriation allowance.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 22 October 2001 by Innova Privat-
                                                                         Akademie GmbH, Berlin, represented by Thomas Kreutzfield,
                                                                         lawyer.
Action brought on 15 October 2001 by Philip Morris
International Inc. against the Commission of the European                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           Communities
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant
                                                                               Euro 104 790 together with interest of 5 % above
                         (Case T-272/01)                                       the basic rate under paragraph 1 of the Diskontsatz-
                                                                               Überleitungs-Gesetz of 9.6.1998 of the Federal Republic
                           (2002/C 3/77)                                       of Germany from the date on which the proceedings
                                                                               became pending;
                   (Language of the case: English)                       —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Pleas in law and main arguments
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 October 2001 by Philip Morris
International Inc., represented by Mr Jacques Derenne and                The applicant applied via a German bank for promotional
Mr Eric Morgan de Rivery of Liederkerke Siméon Wessing                   funds from the European Commission in order to finance a
Houthoff, Brussels (Belgium).                                            project within the framework of the EU ECIP promotional
                                                                         programme. The subject matter of the applicant’s project was
                                                                         a feasibility study on a joint venture in the area of professional
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              training in India.
—     annul the Contested Act resulting in the filing of the
                                                                         In March 1999 the bank informed the applicant that the
      Complaint on 6 August 2001 before the New York
                                                                         application had been approved with a subsidy of
      District Court against the applicant, as publicly
                                                                         Euro 115 328. The Commission had given that information
      announced by the Commission in Press Release
                                                                         to the bank infomally by telephone. However, the applicant
      IP/01/1193 of 6 August 2001;
                                                                         subsequently received no further information from the Com-
                                                                         mission.
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
                                                                         In 2000 the ECIP project was halted on account of the
                                                                         irregularities within the Commission which had come to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          light in 1999. Despite the above-mentioned agreement, the
                                                                         applicant received no funds from the ECIP project.
The applicant in the present case is the same undertaking as in
case T-377/00 (1). The facts, grounds and main arguments are             The applicant, which, in reliance on the promotion of the
similar to those arising in this case.                                   project, had concluded a contract with a consultancy firm with
                                                                         respect to the feasibility study, claims damages for the loss
                                                                         which it has allegedly incurred and claims that the failure to
(1) Philip Morris International/Commission (OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001,        pay the promotional funds is unlawful and caused the loss
    p. 23).                                                              suffered by it.


C 219/14               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                14.9.2002
        Removal from the register of Case C-51/02 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-132/02 ( 1)
                         (2002/C 219/36)                                                    (2002/C 219/37)
By order of 5 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from                By order of 29 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-51/02: Commission of the European            of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
Communities v Ireland.                                              register of Case C-132/02: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
( 1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
                                                                    (1 ) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.


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