title: Appeal brought on 14 April 1998 by Smanor SA, Hubert Ségaud and Monique Ségaud against the order made on 16 February 1998 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-182/97 between, on the one hand, Smanor SA, Hubert Ségaud and Monique Ségaud and, on the other, the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-103/98 P)

text:
30.5.98                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 166/11
          (i) is the test for determining the amount of input                communicated to the Commission and to the Court of
               tax that is deductible any different as between               Justice, so that all the evidence may be made available
               Article 17(2), (3) and (5) (and, if so, in which              on an equal footing.
               respects is it different); and
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments:
          (ii) is such a person entitled to deduct all the input
               tax charged in respect of an input on the                 Ð Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
               ground that the input was utilised as a                       expectations;
               consequence of making a transaction falling
               within Article 17(3)(c)?                                  Ð Breach of the principle of equality of arms, by virtue
                                                                             of the piecemeal approach to the evidence;
(1) First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the           Ð Breach of the principle of equality of treatment,
    harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning
                                                                             whereby comparable situations are not to be treated
    turnover taxes (OJ 71 of 14.4.1967, p. 1301 (SE SER1 67
    p. 14)).                                                                 differently and different situations are not to be
(2) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                 treated alike;
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:                   Ð Violation of the case-law established by Community
    uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).               law.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Appeal brought on 14 April 1998 by Smanor SA, Hubert                     Administratif de Dijon by judgment of that court of
SeÂgaud and Monique SeÂgaud against the order made on                    24 March 1998 in the case of CRT France International
16 February 1998 by the Second Chamber of the Court of                        SA v Directeur ReÂgional des Impôts de Bourgogne
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                                              (Case C-109/98)
T-182/97 between, on the one hand, Smanor SA, Hubert
                                                                                (98/C 166/18)
SeÂgaud and Monique SeÂgaud and, on the other, the
          Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                        (Case C-103/98 P)                                European Communities by a judgment of the First
                           (98/C 166/17)                                 Chamber of the Tribunal Administratif de Dijon
                                                                         (Administrative Court, Dijon), of 24 March 1998, which
                                                                         was received at the Court Registry on 15 April 1998, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of CRT France International
An appeal against the order made on 16 February 1998
                                                                         SA v Directeur ReÂgional des Impôts de Bourgogne on the
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                         following question:
the European Communities in Case T-182/97 between, on
the one hand, Smanor SA, Hubert SeÂgaud and Monique                      Whether the provisions of Articles 9, 12 and 95 of the
SeÂgaud and, on the other, the Commission of the                         Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the European
European Communities was brought before the Court of                     Economic Community preclude the national authorities
Justice of the European Communities on 14 April 1998 by                  from imposing on manufacturers, importers and persons
Smanor SA, Hubert SeÂgaud and Monique SeÂgaud,                           making supplies in France of transmitting/receiving sets
represented by Laurence Roques, of the Val de Marne Bar,                 operating on two-way channels a tax, the rules for which
with an address for service at 9 Rue du GeÂneÂral de                     are laid down by Article 302 bis (X) of the Code GeÂneÂral
Larminat, CreÂteil.                                                      des Impôts.
The appellants claim that the Court should:
Ð rule that the order made by the Court of First Instance
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-50/97 (1)
     on 16 February 1998 is vitiated by a manifest error of
     assessment;                                                                                (98/C 166/19)
                                                                         By order of 14 October 1997, the President of the Court
Ð rule that the Commission made an error of assessment                   of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
     in the conclusions contained in its letter of 21 May                removal from the register of Case C-50/97: (Reference for
     1997;                                                               a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank
                                                                         te Almelo): Jan Blauw and Others v Gavema BV.
Ð grant the appellants' application for an order that the                (1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.
     documents in the Smanor case held by the French
     authorities in their administrative archives be


title: Case T-87/02: Action brought on 26 March 2002 by Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia — Diputación Foral de Bizkaia aygainst Commission of the European Communities

text:
15.6.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 144/53
      percentage of the investment or the cost of salaries was           —     in the alternative, annul Article 3 of that decision;
      not set beforehand in no way precludes its being done
      subsequently with the aim of checking that it does not
      exceed the level of aid for a region authorised as part of         —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
      overall regional aid.
e.    in the alternative to all the above pleas in law, the order        Pleas in law and main arguments
      requiring recovery of the aid (first sentence of Article 3
      of the contested decision) infringes the last sentence of
      Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 given the
      exceptional circumstances of the present case (duration            The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2001) 4478
      of the preliminary examination, which lasted more than             final of 20 December 2001 declaring State aid incompatible
      79 months). The fact that the Commission examined the              with the common market the exemption from company tax
      fiscal scheme at issue in 1994 and did not find against it         arising from Article 14 of Norma Foral (Regional Law) No 5/
      gave rise to a well-founded expectation that it was                1993 of 24 June 1993 on urgent fiscal provisions to promote
      regarded as compliant with Community law, so that                  investment and economic activity (Boletı́n Oficial de Bizkaia
      Article 3 of the contested decision is contrary to the             No 154 of 7 July 1993), which provides for exemption from
      principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.         company tax for undertakings created between the entry into
                                                                         force of that Law and 31 December 1994, provided that they
                                                                         invest more than PTA 80 million (EUR 480 810), create more
                                                                         than 10 new jobs and have disbursed capital amounting to
                                                                         more than PTA 20 million (EUR 120 202).
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
                                                                         applicants are identical to those put forward in Case T-86/02.
Action brought on 26 March 2002 by Territorio Histórico
de Bizkaia — Diputación Foral de Bizkaia aygainst Com-
            mission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-87/02)                                 Action brought on 26 March 2002 by Territorio Histórico
                                                                         de Gipuzkoa — Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa against
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                        (2002/C 144/105)
                                                                                (Case T-88/02)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                                                (2002/C 144/106)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 26 March 2002 by the Territorio                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Histórico de Bizkaia — Diputación Foral de Bizkaia, Bizkaia            European Communities on 26 March 2002 by the Territorio
(Spain), represented by Ignacio Saenz-Cortabarria and Marta              Histórico de Gipuzkoa — Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa,
Morales Isasi.                                                           Gipuzkoa (Spain), represented by Ignacio Saenz-Cortabarria
                                                                         and Marta Morales Isasi.
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission Decision of 20 December 2001                  —     annul the Commission Decision of 20 December 2001
      on the system of aid implemented by Spain in 1993 in                     on the system of aid implemented by Spain in 1993 in
      favour of a number of newly-created undertakings in                      favour of a number of newly-created undertakings in
      Bizkaia;                                                                 Gipuzkoa;


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 April 2003 in Case T-91/02: Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Action now devoid of purpose — No need to give a decision)

text:
19.7.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 171/25
performance for 2001 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President,
P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator,                                        of 8 April 2003
for the Registrar; has given a judgment on 20 May 2003 in
which it:
                                                                            in Case T-91/02: Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH & Co.
                                                                                KG v Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                            (Action for annulment — Action now devoid of purpose —
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                               No need to give a decision)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/41)
( 1) OJ C 202, 24. 8. 2002.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            In Case T-91/02: Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH & Co. KG,
                                                                            established in Wismar (Germany), represented by D. Reich,
                                                                            lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                                                                            the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Bucci) — application for the annulment
                                                                            of Commission Decision 2002/468/EC, of 15 January 2002
                          of 3 April 2003                                   on the State aid implemented by Germany for Klausner Nordic
                                                                            Timber GmbH & Co. KG, Wismar, Mecklenburg-Western
                                                                            Pomerania (OJ 2002 L 165, p. 15) — the Court of First
in Case T-18/02, Anita Jannice Österholm v Commission                       Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
               of the European Communities ( 1)                             of V. Tiili, President, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A. W. H. Meij and
                                                                            M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 April
                                                                            2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
       (Official — Action for damages — Inadmissible)
                                                                            1.    There is no need to give a decision on the present action.
                          (2003/C 171/40)
                                                                            2.    The Commission shall pay the costs, including those relating to
                                                                                the procedure for interim relief.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (1 ) OJ 156 of 29.6.02.
In Case T-18/02, Anita Jannice Österholm, residing in Stockh-
olm, represented by J. R. Iturriagagoitia and K. Devolvé,
lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agent: J. Currall and V. Joris) — application for compen-
sation for the material and non-material damage caused, inter                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
alia, by the length of time taken to process a claim submitted
by the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Second                                               of 27 March 2003
Chamber), composed of N. J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung
and W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                                                                            in Case T-163/02: Montan Gesellschaft Voss mbH
3 April 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            Stahlhandel and Others v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( 1)
1.    There is no longer any need to give a decision on the action for
      annulment.                                                            (Action for annulment — No need to give a decision —
                                                                            Action for damages — Admissibility — Plea of inadmissi-
2.    The action for damages is dismissed as inadmissible.                          bility joined to the application on the substance)
3.    The Commission shall pay half of the applicant’s costs as well                                   (2003/C 171/42)
      as its own costs. The applicant shall bear the other half of her
      own costs.                                                                               (Language of the case: German)
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.02.
                                                                            In Case T-163/02: Montan Gesellschaft Voss mbH Stahlhandel,
                                                                            established in Planneg (Germany), Jepsen Stahl GmbH, estab-
                                                                            lished in Nittendorf (Germany), LNS — Lothar Niemeyer


title: Case C-618/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 1 December 2011 — TVI Televisão Independente, SA v Fazenda Pública

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 1 December 2011 — TVI Televisão Independente, SA v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-618/11)
   2012/C 49/26
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: TVI Televisão Independente, SA

      Respondent: Fazenda Pública

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 16(1) of the CIVA [VAT Code], as interpreted in the judgment under appeal (to the effect that the commercial advertising screening tax is inherent in the supply of advertising services, so that it should be included in the taxable amount of the supply of services for the purposes of VAT), compatible with Article 11(A)(1)(a) of Directive 77/388/EC (1) (now Article 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006) and, in particular, with the concept of ‘consideration which has been or is to be obtained by the supplier … for such supplies’?

               2.

               Is Article 16(6)(c) of the CIVA, as interpreted in the judgment under appeal (to the effect that the commercial advertising screening tax does not constitute an amount paid in the name and on behalf of the customer of the services, even though it is accounted for in third party suspense accounts and is intended to be paid to public bodies, so that it is not excluded from the taxable amount for the purposes of VAT) compatible with Article 11(A)(3)(c) of Directive 77/388/EC (now Article 79(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006) and, in particular, with the concept of ‘amounts received by a taxable person from his purchaser or customer as repayment for expenses paid out in the name and for the account of the latter and which are entered in his books in a suspense account’?

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

      (2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case C-436/01: Action brought on 12 November 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
19.1.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 17/9
2.    order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                      Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
                                                                          in Case C-435/01 (3); the time-limit prescribed in Article 2 of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Directive 98/81/EC expired on 5 June 2001.
                                                                          (1) OJ 1999 L 93, p. 27.
The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 249 EC is            (2) OJ 1990 L 117, p. 1.
such as to require Member States to whom directives are                   (3) See page 8 of this Official Journal.
addressed to adopt the measures needed to comply with them
before the expiry of the time-limit prescribed in such directives.
The time-limit prescribed in Article 21(1) of Directive 96/61
expired on 30 October 1999 but the Kingdom of Belgium has
not adopted the requisite provisions.
(1) OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26.
                                                                          Action brought on 20 November 2001 by the Com-
                                                                          mission of the European Communities against the Hellen-
                                                                                ic Republic
                                                                                (Case C-450/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 17/15)
Action brought on 12 November 2001 by the Com-                            An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
mission of the European Communities against the                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 No-
                        Kingdom of Belgium                                vember 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Legal Adviser.
                          (Case C-436/01)
                                                                          The Commission claims that the Court should:
                           (2002/C 17/14)                                 —      declare that, by not adopting within the time-limit laid
                                                                                down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                                necessary to comply with Commission Directive
                                                                                1999/8/EC (1) of 18 February 1999 amending Council
                                                                                Directive 66/402/EEC on the marketing of cereal seed,
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                             the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       under the Treaty and that directive;
12 November 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by H. van Lier, acting as Agent.                 —      order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Pleas in law and main arguments
1.    declare that, by failing within the time-limits prescribed
      to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative               In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive               directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
      98/81/EC (1) of 26 October 1998 amending Directive                  each Member State to which they are addressed.
      90/219/EEC (2) on the contained use of genetically modi-
      fied micro-organisms, or at any rate to notify the same to
      the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to                Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
      fulfil its obligations under that directive;                        to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
                                                                          to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
                                                                          or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
2.    order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                      Community.


title: References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Trento by orders of that Court of 24 October 1996 in the cases of 1. Ministero delle Finanze against Cotonificio del Trention SpA (C-371/96) and 2. Ministero delle Finanze against Merkur Chemical Srl (C-373/96) (Cases C-371/96 and C-373/96)

text:
No c 40/8                  ΓΕΝ ]                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                8 . 2 . 97
    ( b) only those indications for which product A has                          4 . Does it make any difference to the answer to
              been authorized in the EU in accordance with                               Questions 2 and/or 3 whether the original or abridged
              Community provisions in force for 6/10 years; or                           applications for marketing authorizations were made
                                                                                before     16 March            1995 , the date upon which
    ( c ) only :                                                                         Regulation ( EC ) No 541 /95 entered into forece ?
              1 . those indications for which product A has been
                   authorized       in   the   EU in     accordance   with
                   Community provisions in force for 6/ 10 years;                5 . In the light of the answers to Questions 1 —4 above, is
                   and                                                                   Article 4.8 ( a ) ( iii ) invalid as contrary to the principles
                                                                                of protection of innovation and/or non-discrimination
              2 . those indications for which product A has been                         and/or proportionality and/or respect for property ?
                   authorized for a shorter period, and which did
                   not require an application for the grant of a
                   new marketing authorization under the                         (') Official Journal English Special Edition 1995— 1996 , p. 20 .
                   provisions of Annex II of Commission                          ( 2 ) OJ No E 55 , IE 3 . 1995 , p. 7 .
                   Regulation ( EC ) No 541 /95 or ( as the case
                   may be ) would not have required such an
                   application had the said Regulation been in
                   force at the time the indication in question was
                   added       by        variation     to    an    existing
                   authorization ; or
     ( d ) some other category of indications, and if so                         References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
              which ?                                                            Trento by orders of that Court of 24 October 1996 in the
                                                                                cases of 1 . Ministero delle Finanze against Cotonificio del
                                                                                Trention SpA ( C-371/96 ) and 2 . Ministero delle Finanze
3 . May product B be authorized in accordance with
                                                                                against Merkur Chemical Sri ( C-373/96 )
     Article 4.8           (a)   ( iii ) of Directive 65/65/EEC ( as
     amended) in respect of:                                                                         ( Cases C-371 /96 and C-373/96 )
      ( a ) all dosage forms and/or doses and/or dosage                                                             ( 97/C 40/ 16 )
              schedules for which product A is currently
              authorized in the relevant Member State at the
              date of the application made in relation to
              product B; or                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                European Communities by orders of the Tribunale di
      ( b ) only those dosage forms and/or doses and/or                           Trento ( Trento District Court ) of 24 October 1996 ,
              dosage schedules for which product A has been                       received at the Court Registry on 25 November 1996 , for
              authorized       in      the   EU    in    accordance    with       a preliminary ruling in the cases of 1 . Ministero delle
               Community provisions in force for 6/ 1 0 years; or                 Finanze against Cotonificio del Trention SpA ( C-371 /96 )
                                                                                and 2 . Ministero delle Finanze against Merkur Chemical
       ( c) only:                                                                  Sri ( C-373/96 ) on the following question:
               1 . those dosage forms and/or doses and/or dosage
                    schedules for which product A has been
                    authorized in the EU in               accordance with          'Does Community law, as interpreted by the Court of
                    Community provisions in force for 6/10 years;                 Justice in its judgment in Case C-208/90 Emmott v.
                    and                                                            Minister for Social Welfare and the Attorney General
                                                                                ( 1991 ) ('), preclude the Italian State, in an action brought
               2 . those dosage forms and/or doses and/or dosage                   against it by a company for reimbursement of sums paid
                    schedules for which product A has been                         by way of taxes which were prohibited by Article 10 of
                    authorized for a shorter period, and which did                 Council Directive 69/335/EEC (2 ), from pleading a
                    not require an application for the grant of a                  national       time-limit       for   submission  of  reimbursement
                    new marketing authorization under the                          claims where, as is provided in Article 13 ( 2 ) of
                    provisions of Annex II of Commission                           Presidential Decree No 641 /72 of 26 October 1972 , time
                    Regulation ( EC ) No 541 /95 ( 2 ) of 10 March                  begins to run from the date of the undue payment of the
                     1995 concerning the examination of variations                 above sums, rather than from the point in time at which,
                    to the terms of a marketing authorization                      with the subsequent abolition of the tax falling within the
                    granted by a competent authority of a Member                    prohibition of Article 10 of the above Directive, the
                     State or ( as the case may be ) would not have                 Italian State abolished the measure which conflicted with
                    required such an application had the said                       that Directive ?'
                     Regulation been in force at the time the dosage
                     form and/or dose and/or dosage schedule in
                     question was added by variation to an existing                 (') ECR 1-4269 , 1991 .
                     authorization; or                                              (2 ) Official Journal English Special Edition 1969 ( II ) p. 412.
         ( d ) some other category of dosage forms and/or doses
                and/or dosage schedules, and if so which ?


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 26 February 2002 in Case T-323/99: Industrie Navali Meccaniche Affini SpA (INMA) and Italia Investimenti SpA (Itainvest) v Commission of the European Communities (State aids — Shipbuilding — Meaning of aid — Lack of reasoning)

text:
15.6.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 144/39
1.    Dismisses the application;                                          3.    Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of
      the defendant and the intervener.                                   (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                26 February 2002
                          21 March 2002
                                                                          in Case T-323/99: Industrie Navali Meccaniche Affini
                                                                          SpA (INMA) and Italia Investimenti SpA (Itainvest) v
in Case T-231/99: Colin Joynson v Commission of the                              Commission of the European Communities (1)
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                          (State aids — Shipbuilding — Meaning of aid — Lack of
(Competition — Beer supply agreements — Individual                                                     reasoning)
                exemption — Article 81(3) EC)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/83)
                         (2002/C 144/82)
                   (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-231/99, Colin Joynson, residing in Manchester
(United Kingdom), represented by B. Bedford, Barrister,                   In Case T-323/99, Industrie Navali Meccaniche Affini SpA
instructed by Messrs Ferdinand Kelly, Solicitors, v Commission            (INMA), in liquidation, established in La Spezia (Italy), rep-
of the European Communities (Agents: K. Wiedner and                       resented by S. Capparucci, Italia Investimenti SpA (Itainvest),
N. Khan), supported by Bass plc, established in London (United            established in Rome (Italy), represented in these proceedings
Kingdom), represented by M. Farquharson, J. Block and                     by G. M. Roberti and F. Sciaudone, lawyers, with an address
N. Green, Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg:          for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European
Application for annulment of Commission Decision 1999/                    Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and, initially, A. Abate
473/EC of 16 June 1999 relating to a proceeding pursuant to               and E. Cappelli, and, subsequently, Abate and G. Conte):
Article 81 [EC] (Case IV/36.081/F3 — Bass) (OJ 1999 L 186,                Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/
p. 1), the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed              262/EC of 20 July 1999 on State aid granted by Italy to the
of: J. Azizi, President, K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges;               INMA shipyard (OJ 2000 L 83, p. 21), Court of First Instance
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given         (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:
a judgment on 21 March 2002, in which it:                                 P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, J. D. Cooke, M. Vilaras
                                                                          and N. J. Forwood, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,
                                                                          for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 February 2002,
                                                                          in which it:
1.    Dismisses the application;
2.    Orders the applicant to bear his own costs and pay those of the     1.    Annuls Commission Decision 2000/262/EC of 20 July 1999
      Commission;                                                               on State aid granted by Italy to the INMA shipyard;
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/40                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       15.6.2002
2.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those        3.    Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
      incurred by the applicants.
(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.                                                 (1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           26 February 2002
                                                                                27 February 2002
in Case T-17/00: Willi Rothley e.a. v European Parlia-
                                 ment (1)
                                                                          in Case T-34/00: Eurocool Logistik GmbH v Office for
(Measure of the Parliament — Action for annulment —                       Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Admissibility — Immunity of Members of the Parliament                                            Designs) (OHIM) (1)
— European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Powers of
                              investigation)
                                                                          (Community trade mark — EUROCOOL — Observance of
                                                                          the rights of defence — Absolute ground for refusal —
                            (2002/C 144/84)                               Distinctive character — Article (7)(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/85)
In Case T-17/00, Willi Rothley, residing at Rockenhausen                                     (Language of the case: German)
(Germany), and the 70 other applicants whose names appear
in the Annex hereto, represented by H.-J. Rabe and G. Berrisch,
lawyers, v European Parliament (Agents: J. Schoo and
H. Krück), supported by Council of the European Union
(Agents: J. Aussant, M. Bauer and I. Dı́ez Parra), Commission             In Case T-34/00, Eurocool Logistik GmbH, established in Linz
of the European Communities (Agents: J.-L. Dewost,                        (Austria), represented by G. Secklehner, lawyer, with an address
H.-P. Hartvig and U. Wölker), Kingdom of the Netherlands                  for service in Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation in the
(Agents: H. G. Sevenster and J. van Bakel) and French Republic            Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:
(Agents: G. de Bergues, S. Pailler, C. Vasak and L. Bernheim):            O. Montalto, E. Joly and G. Schneider): Action brought against
Application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of                 the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
18 November 1999 on the amendments to the Rules of                        Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Procedure following the Interinstitutional Agreement of                   Designs) of 9 December 1999 (Case R 233/1999-1), concern-
25 May 1999 between the Parliament, the Council and the                   ing registration of the term EUROCOOL as a Community trade
Commission on the internal investigations conducted by the                mark, Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), Court of First Instance                P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos,
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-            Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
Valdecasas and J. D. Cooke, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-              given a judgment on 27 February 2002, in which:
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 February
2002, in which it:
                                                                          1.    Annuls paragraph 1 of the operative part of the decision of the
                                                                                First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 December
                                                                                1999 (Case R 233/1999-1);
2.    Orders the applicants to pay their own costs and those incurred
      by the defendant in the main proceedings and in the application
      for interim relief;                                                 2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 October 1995 in Joined Cases T-39/93 and T-553/93: Michael Baltsavias v. Commission of the European Communities (Official - Personal file - Duty to provide assistance - Non-material damage)

text:
No C 315/ 14        1 EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25 . 11 . 95
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 28 September 1995                                                   of 5 October 1995
in Case T-164/94 : Ferchimex SA v. Council of the European            in Case T-17/95 : Spyridoulia Alexopoulou v. Commission
                              Union (')                                             of the European Communities ( l )
(Anti-dumping duty on potash — Determination ofnormal                 (Officials — Classification in grade — Article 31 (2) of the
          value — Injury — Right to a fair hearing)                                          Staff Regulations)
                           ( 95/C 315/29 )                                                      ( 95/C 315/30 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      In Case T-17/95 : Spyridoulia Alexopoulou, an official of the
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                      Brussels , represented by Constantin Nikis, of the Brussels
In Case T-164/94: Ferchimex SA, established in Antwerp                Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                      Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v.
( Belgium ), represented by Alastair Sutton, of the Bar of
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
England and Wales, and Aristotelis Kaplanidis, of the
Thessaloniki Bar, with an address for service in                      Gianluigi Valsesia and Fabrizio Minneci ) — application for
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe,               the annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of
v. Council of the European Union ( Agents : Ramon Torrent,
                                                                      5 April 1994 inasmuch as it appoints the applicant to grade
                                                                      A7, step 5 , and refuses by implication to appoint her to
Jorge Monteiro, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg Berrisch ),
                                                                      grade A6 — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ),
supported by Commission of the European Communities
( Agent : Eric White ) and Association des Producteurs                composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and D. P. M.
                                                                      Barrington and A. Saggio , Judges ; H. Jung, Registrar, has
Européens de Chlorure de Potassium ( APEP), established in
                                                                      given a judgment on 5 October 1995 , in which it:
Brussels , represented by Dietrich Ehle and Volker Schiller,
Rechtsanwälte, Cologne — application for the annulment
of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3068/92 of 23 October                1 . Annuls the decision of the Commission of 5 April 1994
 1992 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of                inasmuch as it deals with the applicant's classification in
potassium chloride originating in Belarus, Russia or Ukraine               grade.
( OJ 1992 L 308 , p. 41 ) — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
Chamber, extended composition ), composed of: K.                      2 . Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Lenaerts, President and R. Schintgen, C. P. Briet, R.
Garcίa-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio
Gonzalez, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 September             (') OJ No C 74 , 25 . 3 . 1995 .
 1995 , in which it :
 1.  Dismisses the action .
2 . Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     costs of the Council and of the Association des                                        of 11 October 1995
     Producteurs Européens de Chlorure de Potassium .                 in Joined Cases T-39/93 and T-553/93 : Michael Baltsavias
                                                                            v. Commission of the European Communities ( ] )
                                                                       (Official — Personal file — Duty to provide assistance —
 3.  Orders the Commission to bear its own costs .                                        Non-material damage)
                                                                                ( 95/C 315/31 )
 (>) OJ No C 52 , 23 . 2 . 1993 .                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       In Joined Cases T-39/93 and T-553/93 : Michael Baltsavias,
                                                                       an official of the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Francis
                                                                       Herbert and Jimena López-Menchero, of the Brussels Bar,
 ---pagebreak--- 25 . 11 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 315/ 15
and also, in the oral procedure, by Harold Nyssens of the             1 . The application for interpretation is dismissed as
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                  inadmissible.
the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 67 rue Ermesinde, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Ana                   2 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for the annulment of the
decisions of the Commission of 1 June 1992 , 31 December              f 1 ) OJ No C 23 , 31 . 1 . 1990 .
1992 ( implicit rejection ) and 3 March 1993 concerning the
maintenance of the applicant's personal file and certain
measures taken to assist him, and for an order requiring the
Commission to pay damages for the harm which the
applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the existence
of a separate file — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts , President, and R.
                                                                                of 29 September 1995
Schintgen and R. Garcίa-Valdecasas, Judges; B. Pastor,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 October 1995 , in               in Case T-381 /94 : Sindacato Pensionati Italiani and Others
which it :                                                                         v. Council of the European Union ( J )
                                                                       (Appointment of the members of the Economic and Social
1 . Annuls the decisions of the Commission of 1 June 1992              Committee — Manifest inadmissibility — Application to
     and 3 March 1993 inasmuch as they reject the                                                        intervene)
     applicant 's request for the inclusion in his personal file                                    ( 95/C 315/33 )
      of certain documents relating to his administrative
     position and reports concerning his ability, efficiency or
      conduct.                                                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
2 . Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of             In Case T-381 /94 : Sindacato Pensionati Italiani,
      Bfrs 1 00 000 as compensation for the non-material              Federazione nazionale Pensionati , Unione Italiana
      damage suffered by him .                                        Lavoratori Pensionati , represented by Massimo Severo
                                                                       Giannini and Massimo d'Antona, of the Rome Bar, and
                                                                      Mario Chiti, of the Florence Bar, with an address for service
3 . Dismisses the remainder of the action .
                                                                       in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11
                                                                       Rue Goethe, against Council of the European Union
4 . Orders the Commission to pay all of the costs.                     ( Agents : Giorgio Maganza and Antonio Tanca ) —
                                                                       application for the annulment of Council Decision
 (•) OJ No C 188 , 10 . 7. 1993 and OJ No C 334, 9 . 12 . 1993 .       94/660/EC, Euratom of 26 September 1994 appointing the
                                                                       members of the Economic and Social Committee for the
                                                                       period from 21 September 1994 to 20 September 1998 ( OJ
                                                                       1 994 L 257, p. 20 ) in so far as it appoints Filippo de Jorio —
                                                                       the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed of:
                                                                       B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P. M. Barrington and A. Saggio,
                                                                      Judges ; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 29 September
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
                       of 5 October 1995
                                                                        1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
 in Case T-165 /89 ( 129 ): Onno Plug v. Commission of the
                   European Communities ( 1 )                          2 . The applicants shall bear their own costs and those of
                          (Interpretation)                                   the defendants.
                           ( 95/C 315/32 )
                                                                        (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                 (Language of the case: French)
 In Case T-165/89 ( 129 ): Onno Plug, a former member of the
 temporary staff of the Commission of the European
  Communities ,      residing     at   Thonex      ( Switzerland ),     Action brought on 19 September 1995 by Adriaan A1 and
 represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar,              Others against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
  of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of                                     ( Case T-171 /95 )
  the European Communities ( Agent: Sean Van                                                          ( 95/C 315 /34 )
  Raepenbusch ) — application for interpretation of the
  judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fourth                             (Language of the case: French)
  Chamber ) on 27 February 1992 in Case T-165/89 (( 1992 )
  ECR 11-367 ) — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
  Chamber ) made an order on 5 October 1995 , the operative             An action against the Commission of the European
  part of which is as follows :                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 3 December 1998 in Case C-368/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division): The Queen v. The Licensing Authority established by the Medicines Act 1968 (acting by The Medicines Control Agency) (Medicinal products - Marketing authorisation - Abridged procedure - Essentially similar products)

text:
23.1.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 20/11
Ferriere di Servola SpA (AFS) Ð on the interpretation of            company incorporated under English law, whose
Article 92 of the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber),            registered office is at Oxted (the United Kingdom),
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,            represented initially by Kanaar & Co., Solicitors, Ð
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.                     Application for the recovery of moneys advanced to the
Edward and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges; N.                     defendant by the Commission in the context of a
Fennelly, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for          demonstration project relating to the conversion of an
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 December 1998              existing refuse transfer station to electrical power
in which it has ruled:                                              generation from the preparation of raw urban refuse and a
                                                                    counterclaim for payment of the balance of the maximum
                                                                    subsidy contractually provided for and for damages Ð the
                                                                    Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann
Application to an undertaking within the meaning of                 (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward
Article 80 of the ECSC Treaty of a system of the kind               and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate-General; R.
introduced by Law No 95/79 of 3 April 1979, and                     Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 December
derogating from the rules of ordinary law relating to               1998, in which it:
insolvency, is to be regarded as giving rise to the grant of
State aid, which is prohibited by Article 4(c) of the ECSC
Treaty, where it is established that the undertaking
                                                                    1. Orders Industrial Refuse & Coal Energy Ltd to
                                                                        reimburse to the Commission the sum of ECU
                                                                        191 438, together with the sum of ECU 50 796 by
Ð has been permitted to continue trading in                             way of interest in respect of the period from 18 August
    circumstances in which it would not have been                       1987 to 23 November 1990, together with interest at
    permitted to do so if the rules of ordinary law relating            the annual rate of 8,15 % from 20 October 1993 on
    to insolvency had been applied, or                                  the sum of ECU 191 438;
Ð has enjoyed one or more advantages, such as a State               2. Dismisses the counterclaim lodged by Industrial
    guarantee, a reduced rate of tax, exemption from the                Refuse & Coal Energy Ltd;
    obligation to pay fines and other pecuniary penalties
    or waiver in practice of public debts wholly or in part,
    which could not have been claimed by another                    3. Orders Industrial Refuse & Coal Energy Ltd to pay
    insolvent undertaking in connection with the                        the costs.
    application of the rules of ordinary law relating to
    insolvency.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
(1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 3 December 1998
                       (First Chamber)
                                                                    in Case C-368/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                     of 3 December 1998                             the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's
in Case C-337/96: Commission of the European                        Bench Division): The Queen v. The Licensing Authority
  Communities v. Industrial Refuse & Coal Energy Ltd (1)            established by the Medicines Act 1968 (acting by The
                                                                                Medicines Control Agency) (1)
         (Arbitration clause Ð Breach of contract)
                                                                    (Medicinal products Ð Marketing authorisation Ð
                        (1999/C 20/17)                                  Abridged procedure Ð Essentially similar products)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/18)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-337/96: Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Thomas F. Cusack and Fergus                     In Case C-368/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
Randolph) v. Industrial Refuse & Coal Energy Ltd, a                 of the EC Treaty by the High Court of Justice (England &
 ---pagebreak--- C 20/12               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.1.1999
Wales), Queen's Bench Division (United Kingdom), for a                    may be authorised under the abridged procedure
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                 provided for in Article 4.8(a)(iii) of Directive
court between The Queen and The Licensing Authority                       65/65/EEC, as amended, for all dosage forms, doses
established by the Medicines Act 1968 (acting by The                      and dosage schedules already authorised for that
Medicines Control Agency), ex parte: Generics (UK) Ltd,                   product.
intervener: E. R. Squibb & Sons Limited, between The
Queen and The Licensing Authority established by the
Medicines Act 1968 (represented by The Medicines                     4. The fact that the original or abridged applications for
Control Agency), ex parte: The Wellcome Foundation                        marketing authorisations were made before entry into
Limited and between The Queen and The Licensing                           force of Commission Regulation (EC) No 541/95 of
Authority established by the Medicines Act 1968                           10 March 1995 concerning the examination of
(represented by The Medicines Control Agency), ex parte:                  variations to the terms of a marketing authorisation
Glaxo Operations UK Ltd and Others, intervener:                           granted by a competent authority of a Member State
Generics (UK) Ltd, on the interpretation and validity of                  does not affect the answers to the second and third
Article 4.8(a)(iii) of Council Directive 65/65/EEC of                     questions.
26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid
down by law, regulation or administrative action relating,
to medicinal products (OJ, English Special Edition
1965Ð1966, p. 20), as amended by Council Directive                   5. Consideration of the fifth question has not disclosed
87/21/EEC of 22 December 1986 (OJ L 15, 17.1.1987,                        any factor of such a nature as to affect the validity of
p. 36) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P.                    Article 4.8(a)(iii) of Directive 65/65/EEC, as amended.
Puissochet, President of Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and M.                    (1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.
Wathelet,       Judges;      D.     Ruiz-Jarabo      Colomer,
Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
given a judgment on 3 December 1998, in which it has
ruled:
1. Article 4.8(a)(iii) of Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
    by law, regulation or administrative action relating to
    medicinal products, as amended by Council Directive                                    of 3 December 1998
    87/21/EEC of 22 December 1986, must be interpreted
    as meaning that a medicinal product is essentially               in Case C-67/97 (request for a preliminary ruling from the
    similar to an original medicinal product where it                Kriminalret i Frederikshavn): Criminal proceedings against
    satisfies the criteria of having the same qualitative and                                 Ditlev Bluhme (1)
    quantitative composition in terms of active principles,
                                                                     (Free movement of goods Ð Prohibition of quantitative
    of having the same pharmaceutical form and of being
                                                                     restrictions and measures having equivalent effect between
    bioequivalent, unless it is apparent in the light of
                                                                     Member States Ð Derogations Ð Protection of the health
    scientific knowledge that it differs significantly from
                                                                     and life of animals Ð Bees of the subspecies Apis
    the original product as regards safety or efficacy. The
                                                                                mellifera mellifera (Lñsù brown bee))
    competent authority of a Member State may not
    disregard the three criteria set out above when it is                                      (1999/C 20/19)
    required to determine whether a particular medicinal
    product is essentially similar to an original medicinal
    product.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
2. A medicinal product that is essentially similar to a
    product which has been authorised for not less than                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
    six or ten years and is marketed in the Member State                       published in the European Court Reports)
    for which the application is made may be authorised,
    under the abridged procedure provided for in Article
    4.8(a)(iii) of Directive 65/65/EEC, as amended, for all          In Case C-67/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
    therapeutic indications already authorised for that              of the EC Treaty by the Kriminalret i Frederikshavn
    product.                                                         (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
                                                                     proceedings before that court against Ditlev Bluhme Ð on
                                                                     the interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty and
                                                                     Article 2 of Council Directive 91/174/EEC of 25 March
3. A medicinal product that is essentially similar to a              1991 laying down zootechnical and pedigree requirements
    product which has been authorised for not less than              for the marketing of pure-bred animals and amending
    six or ten years in the Community and is marketed in             Directives 77/504/EEC and 90/425/EEC (OJ L 85,
    the Member State for which the application is made               5.4.1991, p. 37) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed


title: Case T-41/02: Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Mediocredito Centrale spa against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.5.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 109/59
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                European Communities on 21 February 2002 by Banca di
                                                                           Roma spa, represented by Franco Gallo and Gabriele Escalar,
(1) annul the contested decision, issued on 11 December                    lawyers.
      2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      on the grounds that it infringes essential procedural
      requirements and/or is unfounded, contradictory and/or               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      lacking in a statement of reasons in accordance with
      Article 253 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with                     —     primarily, annul the decision of the Commission of the
      Articles 87 and 88 and with Council Regulation                             European Communities which is contested in these
      No 659/1999;                                                               proceedings;
                                                                           —     alternatively, annul the decision of the Commission of
(2) alternatively, annul the decision in question wholly or in
                                                                                the European Communities which is contested in these
      part pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 230 of
                                                                                proceedings in so far as it requires Italy to ‘adopt all
      the EC Treaty, inasmuch as it infringes or misapplies
                                                                                necessary measures to recover the aid granted from the
      Article 87(1) or, in the further alternative, Article 87(3)(b)
                                                                                recipients thereof’;
      or (c) of the EC Treaty;
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings
(3) in the still further alternative, in the inconceivable event                 and all other consequential expenses.
      that the Court finds that the articles of Law No 461 of
      23 December 1998 and of Legislative Decree No 153 of
      17 May 1999, to which the contested decision relates,
      constitute a system of State aid which is incompatible               Pleas in law and main arguments
      with the common market, exempt the private benefici-
      aries of such aid from having to reimburse the same and,
      in any event, rule that the contested decision of the                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
      Commission cannot have any retroactive effect, thus                  put forward in Case T-36/02 ABI v Commission.
      annulling certain parts of the contested decision on the
      grounds that the Commission failed to exercise its
      investigatory power in a reasonable way and/or failed
      to give sufficient reasons, alternatively infringed the
      principles of the protection of legitimate expectations
      and/or proportionality and/or legal certainty within the
      meaning of Article 14 of Regulation No 659/1999.
                                                                           Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Mediocredito
                                                                           Centrale spa against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case T-41/02)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                                         (2002/C 109/114)
put forward in Case T-36/02 ABI v Commission.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 21 February 2002 by Mediocredito
Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Banca di Roma                        Centrale spa, represented by Franco Gallo and Gabriele Escalar,
spa against the Commission of the European Communities                     lawyers.
                          (Case T-40/02)                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2002/C 109/113)                                   —     primarily, annul the decision of the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities which is contested in these
                                                                                proceedings;
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           —     alternatively, annul the decision of the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities which is contested in these
                                                                                proceedings in so far as it requires Italy to ‘adopt all
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        necessary measures to recover the aid granted from the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                       recipients thereof’;
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/60               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4.5.2002
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings                  interest is to be paid, at least that interest which accrued
      and all other consequential expenses.                                      prior to the demand for reimbursement, and in any event
                                                                                the interest prescribed.
                                                                           —     In any event:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                make all further consequential orders or such further
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                        orders as it shall consider appropriate or legally necessary.
put forward in Case T-36/02 ABI v Commission.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Banca Monte dei                      put forward in Case T-36/02 ABI v Commission.
Paschi di Siena Spa against the Commission of the
                     European Communities
                          (Case T-42/02)
                        (2002/C 109/115)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        Action brought on 26 February 2002 by Dresdner Bank
                                                                           AG against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                            (Case T-44/02)
European Communities on 21 February 2002 by Banca Monte
dei Paschi di Siena Spa, represented by Cristoforo Osti,
Giuseppe Pizzonia, Alessandra Prastaro and Marcello Valenti,                                        (2002/C 109/116)
lawyers.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Primarily:
—     (1) annul the decision of the Commission of the Euro-                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
            pean Communities of 11 December 2001;                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 26 February 2002 by Dresdner
                                                                           Bank AG, of Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by
      (2) order the Commission to pay the costs.                           M. Hirsch and W. Bosch, lawyers.
—     Alternatively:
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      (1) annul Article 1 of the contested decision, inasmuch
            as it holds Article 24(1) of the ‘Legge Ciampi’ to be
            incompatible with the common market;                           —     annul the decision of 11 December 2001 in Case
                                                                                COMP/E-1/37.919 — Bank charges for currency
      (2) annul Article 4 of the contested decision, ordering                    exchange within the Euro zone: Germany (Dresdner Bank
            the recovery of the aid granted together with interest               AG) pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 231 EC,
            from the date on which the aid became available;                     alternatively cancel the fine imposed on Dresdner Bank
                                                                                AG by Article 3 of that decision;
—     In the further alternative:
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs of Dresdner Bank
      annul the contested decision in so far as it provides that,                AG pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure
      in addition to the amount of the aid to be recovered,                      of the Court of First Instance.


Avis juridique important

|

31994Y0430(01)

Advice for lawyers and agents regarding the written procedure before the Court of First Instance drawn up by the Registrar pursuant to Article 18 (2) of the Instructions to the Registrar of 3 March 1994

Official Journal C 120 , 30/04/1994 P. 0016 - 0018

Advice for lawyers and agents regarding the written  procedure before the Court of First Instance drawn up by the Registrar pursuant to Article 18 (2)  of the Instructions to the Registrar of 3 March 1994(94/C 120/36)I. The purpose of the  written procedureThe purpose of the written procedure before the Court of First Instance is to  define the subject-matter of the action and to put before the Court all the claims of the parties  by informing it of the relevant facts, forms of order sought, and the pleas and arguments of the  parties so as to enable the Court to give judgment in the action. II. The presentation and drafting of pleadings1. Pleadings should have a clear structure: each  section should have a title and paragraphs should be numbered consecutively. In the case of lengthy  pleadings, it is desirable to introduce each section with a brief summary of its contents and to  include a table of contents in the pleading. 2. Since the number of pleadings which each party may submit to the Court is limited (see Article  47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance) and new pleas may not be raised in the  course of the proceedings except in certain limited circumstances (see Article 48 of the Rules of  Procedure), it is advisable that a party should set out its entire case as fully as possible in its  first pleading (the application or the defence). 3. In view of the fact that the Judges will often study a set of pleadings by reading translations  of them into another language, it is advisable to draft pleadings in a simple, straightforward and  concise style which facilitates translation and to limit the number of pages to what is strictly  necessary. 4. When pleadings are drafted documents to which reference is made in them should be clearly  identified and care should also be taken to ensure that all important documents are submitted.  Documents should be identified by indicating, each time reference is made to them, the pleading to  which the document concerned is annexed, with an indication of the annex number as it appears in  the schedule of annexes attached to that pleading. It is desirable for each document to be  identified in the same way throughout both the written and oral proceedings. Attaching to a  pleading document already submitted to the Court as annexes to another pleading needlessly  increases the volume of written evidence to be considered by the Court and may cause confusion. 5. When addressing the arguments of another party it is advisable to refer to the relevant pages of  the other party's pleading. III. The structure of pleadings1. Originating applications must comply with Article 44 of the  Rules of Procedure. Ideally, they should be structured as follows: 1. Indication of the partiesSee Article 44 (1) (a) and (b) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure. 2. Details of the type of dispute involvedFor example: 'Application under Article 173 of the EC  Treaty for the annulment of a decision of (the institution concerned) . . .'3. A summary of the  relevant factsSupported by references to the documents and offers of evidence. 4. Any considerations relating to the admissibility of the action5. A brief statement of all the  pleas in law on which the action is based6. A summary of the arguments put forward in support of  each plea in lawincluding, where appropriate, references to the relevant case-law of the Court of  Justice and of the Court of First Instance. 7. Form of order soughtParties must set out the precise terms of the operative part of the order  or judgment which they seek (for example: '1. annul the defendant's decision of . . .; 2. order the  defendant to pay the costs'). When drawing up the form of order sought, those acting for applicants  should bear in mind what is laid down in Article 176 of the EC Treaty and that it is unnecessary to  reiterate in the form of order sought pleas and arguments set out earlier in the application (for  example, the following types of formulation should be avoided '. . . declare that the action is  admissible and well-founded; declare that the contested decision does not state the reasons on  which it is based and is contrary to the provisions of the Treaty and the principle of  proportionality . . .'). Reference should also be made to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure as  regards any order sought in the matter of costs. 2. In order to facilitate the drafting of the Official Journal notice provided for by Article 24  (6) of the Rules of Procedure and to ensure that the subject-matter of the case and the pleas in  law and main arguments contained in the application are clearly identified, it is advisable to  annex to the application a brief outline of the pleas in law and main arguments together with a  table of contents. IV. Production of annexes1. Pleadings and procedural documents may be accompanied by documents  annexed to them in order to substantiate or illustrate their contents. However, mere reference to  an annex will be no substitute for including a summary of the facts, pleas and arguments in the  body of the pleading or procedural document. Only annexes mentioned in the pleadings will be  admissible. 2. A schedule of annexes must be submitted, as prescribed by Article 43 (4) of the Rules of  Procedure and Article 6 (4) of the Instructions to the Registrar. Ideally, this schedule should set  out the annex numbers, the date and nature of the documents annexed and the pages of the pleading  on which reasons for the production of the respective annexes are given. In some cases, subnumbers  will facilitate the identification of documents. 3. Lawyers and agents should ensure that the pleadings and evidence submitted are not made  unnecessarily lengthy by the production of an excessive number of annexes and that the really  important passages or information contained in annexes are still reproduced in the body of the  pleadings.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 January 2001 in Case C-413/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Directora-Geral do Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social Europeu (DAFSE) v Frota Azul-Transportes e Turismo L.da (European Social Fund — Certification of facts and accounts — Powers of certification Limits)

text:
16.6.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 173/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1.   The relevant Member State’s certification of the accuracy of the
                                                                                facts and accounts in final payment claims must, for the
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                          purposes of Article 5(4) of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 2950/83 of 17 October 1983 on the implementation of
                                                                                Decision 83/516/EEC on the tasks of the European Social
                        of 25 January 2001                                        Fund, be understood as including an assessment as to whether
                                                                                the expenditure incurred is appropriate and justified.
in Case C-413/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Directora-Geral                        2.   A decision by the competent authorities of a Member State not
do Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social                                  to certify the accuracy of the facts and accounts concerning a
Europeu (DAFSE) v Frota Azul-Transportes e Turismo                                portion of the expenditure in respect of a training operation to
                               L.da (1)                                           which the European Social Fund has contributed, on the ground
                                                                                that the expenditure cannot be justified or is disproportionate,
                                                                                must be regarded as a proposal addressed to the Commission of
(European Social Fund — Certification of facts and accounts                       the European Communities for that portion of the expenditure
                — Powers of certification Limits)                                 to be held to be ineligible.
                          (2001/C 173/01)                                    3.   The reduction or withdrawal of the national contribution
                                                                                proposed by the competent authorities of a Member State
                                                                                pursuant to a decision not to certify the accuracy of the facts or
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)                               accounts as regards certain expenditure must be made the
                                                                                subject of a final decision by the Commission concerning the
                                                                                portion of the aid corresponding to the assistance from the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published            European Social Fund. That final decision of the Commission
                   in the European Court Reports)                                 approving the balance to be paid determines the amount of the
                                                                                balance to be paid from the national contribution.
In Case C-413/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                4.   Community law does not preclude the competent authorities of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Supremo Tribunal                      a Member State from requiring, as a purely protective measure,
Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court) (Portugal) for                      repayment of the national contribution and of the assistance
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                       from the European Social Fund before the adoption by the
court between Directora-Geral do Departamento para os                             Commission of its final decision.
Assuntos do Fundo Social Europeu (DAFSE) and Frota Azul-
Transportes e Turismo Ld.a — on the interpretation of Council                5.   Certification, for the purposes of the second sentence of
Decision 83/516/EEC of 17 October 1983 on the tasks of the                        Article 5(4) of Regulation No 2950/83, of the accuracy of the
European Social Fund (OJ 1983 289, p. 38), Council                                facts and accounts in the final payment claim in respect of a
Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 of 17 October 1983 on the                             training operation does not preclude a Member State from
implementation of Decision 83/516/EEC (OJ 1983 L 289,                             undertaking a subsequent reassessment of the final payment
p. 1) and Commission Decision 83/673/EEC of 22 December                           claim and from submitting to the Commission, if necessary, a
1983 on the management of the European Social Fund (OJ                            revised application proposing that the assistance be reduced.
1983 L 377, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: C. Gulmann,
President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet,
R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo,                  (1) OJ C 33 of 6.2.1999.
Advocate General; R. Grass, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 25 January 2001, in which it has ruled:


title: Case F-53/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 11 May 2011 — J v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Social security — Accident insurance and occupational disease — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Refusal to recognise the cause of an occupational disease — Obligation to conduct the procedure within a reasonable period)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/50

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 11 May 2011 — J v Commission
   (Case F-53/09) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Social security - Accident insurance and occupational disease - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Refusal to recognise the cause of an occupational disease - Obligation to conduct the procedure within a reasonable period)
   2011/C 252/106
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: J (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s claim that the disease from which she is suffering should be recognised as an occupational disease, and of the decision to charge her for the fees and costs of the doctor whom she designated and 50 % of the fees and incidental costs of the third doctor on the medical committee

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the applicant damages of one euro;

               2.

               Dismisses the other claims in the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay, as well as its own costs, one quarter of the applicant’s costs;

               4.

               Orders the applicant to bear three-quarters of her own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180, of 01.08.2009, p. 64.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 November 1998 in Case T-294/97: Manuel Tomás Carrasco Benítez v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Internal competition reserved for Category A temporary staff - Application by a Grade B 5 official - Unlawfulness of the notice of competition)

text:
C 397/30              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  19.12.98
J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
given a judgment on 17 November 1998, in which it:                                    of 12 November 1998
                                                                  in Case T-294/97: Manuel TomaÂs Carrasco Benítez v.
1. Dismisses the action;                                                  Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                  (Officials Ð Internal competition reserved for Category A
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                    temporary staff Ð Application by a Grade B 5 official Ð
                                                                           Unlawfulness of the notice of competition)
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.                                                                    (98/C 397/59)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                  In Case T-294/97: Manuel TomaÂs Carrasco Benítez, an
                                                                  official of the Commission of the European Communities,
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                         residing in London, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,
                    of 17 November 1998                           Thierry Demaseure, FrancËoise Parmentier and, initially,
                                                                  Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
in Case T-131/97: Carmen Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez              service in Luxembourg at the Offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                  v. European Parliament (1)                      SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v. Commission of the
(Officials Ð Retirement Ð Article 50 of the Staff                 European Communities (Agent: Julian Currall) Ð
                         Regulations)                             application for annulment of the decision of the selection
                                                                  board in competition COM/T/A/97 not to admit the
                        (98/C 397/58)                             applicant to the tests in the competition, which had been
                                                                  organised in order to constitute a reserve list of assistant
                                                                  administrators, administrators and principal administrators
               (Language of the case: French)                     Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
                                                                  composed of: P. Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and
                                                                  J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator,
In Case T-131/97: Carmen Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez,             for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 November
a former official of the European Parliament, represented         1998, in which it:
by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v. European Parliament (Agent:            1. Annuls the decisions of the selection board of 14 April
Manfred Peter, assisted by Denis Walbroeck) Ð                         and 12 May 1997 in internal competition COM/T/A/
application for annulment of the decision adopted                     97, refusing to admit Manuel TomaÂs Carrasco Benítez
pursuant to Article 50 of the Staff Regulation of officials           to the tests in that competition;
of the European Communities by the European Parliament
at its meeting on 15 and 16 July 1996, by which it retired
the applicant and rejected her applications for two other         2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
posts in the same grade Ð the Court of First Instance
(First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President,           (1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.
R. M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has gien a judgment on
17 November 1998, in which it:
1. Declares the action inadmissible in so far as it seeks
     annulment of that section of the operative part of the                      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
     decision adopted by the European Parliament at its                     OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     meeting on 15 and 16 July 1996 which confirms the
     rejection of the application by the applicant for the                             of 21 October 1998
     post of Director-General of the Parliament's                 in Case T-40/95 R II: V v. Commission of the European
     Directorate-General 1;                                                                 Communities
                                                                  (Officials Ð Applications for interim measures Ð
2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;                              Disciplinary procedure Ð No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (98/C 397/60)
3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
                                                                  In Case T-40/95 R II: V, an official of the Commission of
                                                                  the European Communities, represented by Jean-NoeÈl