title: Case T-178/10: Action brought on 21 April 2010 — Spain v Commission

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/52

      Action brought on 21 April 2010 — Spain v Commission
      (Case T-178/10)
      (2010/C 161/82)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the European Commission of 22 February 2010, declaring the suspension of the interim payment applications made by the Kingdom of Spain between 17 November and 30 December 2009 and, alternatively, partially annul that decision in relation to the following interim payment applications:

                              —

                              2007ES161PO008 Andalucia

                              EUR 94 370 752,75

                              —

                              2007ES161PO008 Andalucia

                              EUR 479 712 483,22

                              —

                              2007ES162PO001 Cantabria

                              EUR 4 697 332,79

                              —

                              2007ES162PO006 Catalunya

                              EUR 5 392 569,98

                              —

                              2007ES162PO008 Aragon

                              EUR 12 451 358,48

                  —

                  uphold the claimed payment of interest by the European Commission, due to the delay in the actual payment of the interim sums applied for and improperly suspended, and

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      This action is directed against the decision of the European Commission to interrupt the payment deadline of the abovementioned payment applications, made by the Kingdom of Spain between 17 November and 30 December 2009. That interruption affects twenty interim payment applications with a total value of EUR 1 890 708 859,51 .
      In support of its claims the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 91(1)(a) of Regulation 1083/2006, (1) since the Commission, without any report from a national or Community audit body to suggest the existence of significant deficiencies in the functioning of the management and control systems and in the absence of any such deficiencies, by means of the contested decision interrupted the payment deadline of the abovementioned interim payment applications submitted by the Kingdom of Spain.

                  —

                  Infringement of the control strategies approved by the Commission, in as much as the Commission interrupted the payment deadline for those interim payments on the ground that the absence of systems audits constitutes a significant failure in the implementation of strategies, when those strategies enabled the Kingdom of Spain to submit those systems audits until 30 June 2010.

                  —

                  Infringement of the principle of legal certainty, since the contested decision requires the Kingdom of Spain to produce the systems audits in advance of the timetable agreed with the Commission itself, a requirement which therefore the Spanish authorities could not have foreseen.

                  —

                  Infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, since the national authorities acted in reliance on auditing timetables which the Commission had approved in the strategies, timetables which were being met, without any indication from the Commission at any time that this represented any deficiency in the management and control system.

                  —

                  Infringement of the principle of proportionality, since the measure adopted by the Commission is disproportionate and contrary to efficient financial management and there are other less onerous legal instruments capable of attaining the same objective.
                  Alternatively, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of the contested decision on the ground of an infringement of Article 87(2) of Regulation 1083/2006, since payment in respect of the abovementioned applications was not made within the period of two months following presentation of the applications.

            Lastly, the Kingdom of Spain claims default interest under Article 87(2) of Regulation 1083/2006, Article 83 of Regulation 1605/2002 (2) and Article 106(5) of Commission Regulation 2342/2002. (3)

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ L 210, p. 25).

         (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 25, p. 43).

         (3)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 357, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 June 2000 in Joined Cases C-418/97 and C-419/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse Raad van State): ARCO Chemie Nederland Ltd v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelĳke Ordening en Milieubeheer (C-418/97) and Vereniging Dorpsbelang Hees and Others v Directeur van de dienst Milieu en Water van de provincie Gelderland (C-419/97) (Environment — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC — Concept of "waste")

text:
23.9.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 273/5
1.    Declares that, by maintaining rules requiring Community              1.    Dismisses the appeal;
      nationals who pursue haulage activities in Italy as service
      providers to be entered on the professional register of the          2.    Orders Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH to pay the
      Chambers of Commerce following authorisation by the Ministry               costs.
      for the Interior, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under Articles 12 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC;
                                                                           (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 15 June 2000
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                           in Joined Cases C-418/97 and C-419/97 (reference for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse Raad van State):
                          of 15 June 2000                                  ARCO Chemie Nederland Ltd v Minister van Volkshuis-
                                                                           vesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (C-418/97)
                                                                           and Vereniging Dorpsbelang Hees and Others v Directeur
in Case C-237/98 P: Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft                   van de dienst Milieu en Water van de provincie Gelder-
mbH v Council of the European Union and Commission                                                 land (C-419/97) (1)
               of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Environment — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC
(Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Embargo on trade                                           — Concept of ‘waste’)
              with Iraq — Lawful act — Damage)
                                                                                (2000/C 273/09)
                          (2000/C 273/08)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                        in the European Court Reports)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Joined Cases C-418/97 and C-419/97: reference to the
In Case C-237/98 P: Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft                   Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234
mbH, established in Munich, Germany, represented by Pro-                   EC) from the Nederlandse Raad van State, The Netherlands, for
fessor K. M. Meessen, with an address for service in Luxem-                a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
bourg at the chambers of P. Kinsch, 100 Boulevard de la                    court between ARCO Chemie Nederland Ltd and Minister van
Pétrusse — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First               Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer
Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) of                   (C-418/97) and between Vereniging Dorpsbelang Hees, Stich-
28 April 1998 in Case T-184/95 Dorsch Consult v Council                    ting Werkgroep Weurt+, Vereniging Stedelijk Leefmilieu
and Commission [1998] ECR II-667, seeking to have that                     Nijmegen and Directeur van de dienst Milieu en Water van de
judgment set aside and the same form of order as that sought               provincie Gelderland, joined party: Elektriciteitsproductiemaat-
by the appellant at first instance, the other parties to the               schappij Oost- en Noord-Nederland NV (Epon) (C-419/97) —
proceedings being: Council of the European Union (Agents:                  on the interpretation of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of
S. Marquardt and A. Tanca and Commission of the European                   15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by
Communities (Agents: A. Rosas and J. Sack) — the Court (Fifth              Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991
Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón (President of the First                   L 78, p. 32) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
Chamber), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,                   D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and                   Almeida, L. Sevón (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puisso-
M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; D. Lout-             chet, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-
erman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has              Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
given a judgment on 15 June 2000, in which it:                             judgment on 15 June 2000, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 273/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          23.9.2000
Case C-418/97                                                                    set out in Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442, as amended by
                                                                                Directive 91/156, that is to say the discarding of the substance
                                                                                in question or the intention or requirement to discard it, regard
1.  It may not be inferred from the mere fact that a substance such              being had to the aim of the directive and the need to ensure that
    as LUWA-bottoms undergoes an operation listed in Annex IIB                   its effectiveness is not undermined.
    to Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste,
    as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March                       For the purpose of determining whether the use of a substance
    1991, that that substance has been discarded so as to enable it              such as wood chips as fuel is to be regarded as constituting
    to be regarded as waste for the purposes of that directive.                  discarding, it is irrelevant that that substance may be recovered
                                                                                in an environmentally responsible manner for use as fuel
                                                                                without substantial treatment.
2.  For the purpose of determining whether the use of a substance
                                                                                The fact that that use as fuel is a common method of recovering
    such as LUWA-bottoms as a fuel is to be regarded as
                                                                                waste and the fact that that substance is commonly regarded as
    constituting discarding, it is irrelevant that that substance may
                                                                                waste may be taken as evidence that the holder has discarded
    be recovered in an environmentally responsible manner for use
                                                                                that substance or intends or is required to discard it within the
    as fuel without substantial treatment.
                                                                                meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442, as amended by
                                                                                Directive 91/156. However, whether it is in fact waste within
                                                                                the meaning of that directive must be determined in the light of
    The fact that that use as fuel is a common method of recovering              all the circumstances, regard being had to the aim of the
    waste and the fact that that substance is commonly regarded as               directive and the need to ensure that its effectiveness is not
    waste may be taken as evidence that the holder has discarded                 undermined.
    that substance or intends or is required to discard it within the
    meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442, as amended by
    Directive 91/156. However, whether it is in fact waste within          (1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998. OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.
    the meaning of the directive must be determined in the light of
    all the circumstances, regard being had to the aim of the
    directive and the need to ensure that its effectiveness is not
    undermined.
    The fact that a substance used as fuel is the residue of the
    manufacturing process of another substance, that no use for            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches
    that substance other than disposal can be envisaged, that the          Finanzgericht by order of that court of 21 February
    composition of the substance is not suitable for the use made of       2000 in the case of Lohmann GmbH & Co. KG v
    it or that special environmental precautions must be taken when                           Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz
    it is used may be regarded as evidence that the holder has
    discarded that substance or intends or is required to discard it
    within the meaning of Article 1(a) of that directive. However,                                     (Case C-262/00)
    whether it is in fact waste within the meaning of the directive
    must be determined in the light of all the circumstances, regard                                   (2000/C 273/10)
    being had to the aim of the directive and the need to ensure that
    its effectiveness is not undermined.
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Hessisches Finanzge-
                                                                           richt (Finance Court, Hessen) of 21 February 2000, received at
Case C-419/97                                                              the Court Registry on 28 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           in the case of Lohmann GmbH & Co. KG v Oberfinanzdirektion
                                                                           Koblenz (Principal Revenue Office, Koblenz) on the following
                                                                           questions:
1.  It may not be inferred from the mere fact that a substance such
    as wood chips undergoes an operation listed in Annex IIB to            1.    Does the description ‘orthopaedic appliances’ within the
    Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, that that                  meaning of CN Code No 9021 cover an elbow bracelet,
    substance has been discarded so as to enable it to be regarded               called epX Elbow Basic, and an elbow support, called epX
    as waste for the purposes of the directive.                                  Elbow Dynamic, made of 1 mm-thick three-layer material
                                                                                in a single colour, with a synthetic central layer enclosed
                                                                                between two elastic membranes; tubular in shape and
2.  The fact that a substance is the result of a recovery operation              manufactured by sewing together, with a length of 8 cm
    within the meaning of Annex IIB to that directive is only one                (elbow bracelet) and 22 cm (elbow support, the latter
    of the factors which must be taken into consideration for the                being also anatomically sewn), each being pulled over the
    purpose of determining whether that substance is still waste,                lower arm below the elbow and worn as a sleeve, with an
    and does not as such permit a definitive conclusion to be drawn              integrated insert, over which is passed a circular strap
    in that regard. Whether it is waste must be determined in the                with an elastic and a non-elastic part and a Velcro
    light of all the circumstances, by comparison with the definition            fastening?


title: Case C-93/01 P: Appeal brought on 26 February 2001 by the French Republic against the judgment delivered on 14 December 2000 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-613/97 between Union Française de l'Express (UFEX), DHL International, Federal Express International (France), CRIE and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the French Republic, Chronopost SA and La Poste

text:
19.5.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 150/11
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Appeal brought on 26 February 2001 by the French
                                                                          Republic against the judgment delivered on 14 December
—     Breach of the principle of Community law relating to the            2000 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of
      concept of set-off between claims: the distinction drawn            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      by the Court of First Instance between ‘actual payment’             in Case T-613/97 between Union Française de l’Express
      and payment by means of set-off does not exist in law,              (UFEX), DHL International, Federal Express International
      since those two methods of payment have the same legal              (France), CRIE and the Commission of the European
      and accounting consequences.                                        Communities, supported by the French Republic, Chrono-
                                                                                post SA and La Poste
—     Breach of the principle of the effectiveness of Community
      law: the Court of First Instance was wrong in concentrat-
      ing on the proper carrying out of the activities relating to
      the payments made by means of set-off without dwelling                                       (Case C-93/01 P)
      on the need to protect the Communities’ financial
      interests. The Court of First Instance did not explain,
      moreover, why set-off is more damaging, in respect of                                        (2001/C 150/21)
      the carrying out of the activities at issue, than enforced
      recovery. By stating that the non-payment of the sums
      intended for the activities at issue jeopardised the carrying       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 December
      out of those activities, the Court of First Instance distorted      2000 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the
      the facts or failed, at least, to state the reasons for its         Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
      observations whereas, indeed, it stated that the CEMR               T-613/97 between Union Française de l’Express (UFEX), DHL
      was not insolvent.                                                  International, Federal Express International (France), CRIE and
                                                                          the Commission of the European Communities, supported by
—     Breach of the principles of sound financial management              the French Republic, Chronopost SA and La Poste, was brought
      and the sound administration of justice: the Court of First         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      Instance failed to take account of the main purpose of              26 February 2001 by the French Republic, represented by
      set-off, which is economy of procedure and the saving of            G. de Bergues and F. Million, acting as Agents, with an address
      costs, not only in the context of mutual financial                  for service in Luxembourg.
      obligations, but also in the context of the sound adminis-
      tration of justice.
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Monomeles
Dioikitiko Protodikeio Irakliou (Second Chamber) by                       —     order the UFEX to pay the costs incurred in the proceed-
judgment of that court of 31 October 2000 in the case of                        ings before the Court of Justice and make a fresh ruling
             G. Stilianakis against the Greek State                             in relation to the costs incurred in the proceedings before
                                                                                the Court of First Instance.
                           (Case C-92/01)
                          (2001/C 150/20)
                                                                          Pleas and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Monomeles Dioiki-
tiko Protodikeio Irakliou (Administrative Court of First                  —     Misinterpretation of ‘normal market conditions’: The
Instance, Heraklion), Second Chamber, of 31 October 2000,                       Court of First Instance erred in holding that when the
received at the Court Registry on 22 February 2001, for a                       Commission carried out an analysis of the economic
preliminary ruling in the case of G. Stilianakis against the                    factors on the basis of which it was considered possible
Greek State on the following question:                                          to assess whether remuneration was ‘normal’, it should
                                                                                have taken into account the implications for La Poste’s
Are Articles 8a and 59 of the EC Treaty and Article 3(1) of                     costs — hence on the remuneration requested from its
Council Regulation No 2408/92 (1) to be interpreted as                          subsidiary — of its structural situation (its reserved
prohibiting a Member State from imposing a differentiated                       sector).
fiscal charge on domestic and intra-Community flights with
the direct result that an amount of tax is charged on intra-
Community flights double that on flights within the Member                      The approach espoused by the Court of First Instance has
State?                                                                          no basis in reality, since a private operator with no
                                                                                reserved activities would never wish to equip itself with a
                                                                                network like the La Poste network, which was developed
(1) OJ L 240 of 24.8.1992, p. 8.                                                solely to meet the needs of the reserved sector. Moreover,
                                                                                no private operator desires access to the La Poste network,
                                                                                despite the allegedly cheaper rates offered.
 ---pagebreak--- C 150/12               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      19.5.2001
—     Infringement of Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now                  (2) if so, is the Member State of nationality entitled to refuse:
      Article 87 EC): The Court of First Instance failed to take
      into consideration the legal context: La Poste is required             a)     to revoke any preliminary obstacle to the entry of
      to offer any of Chronopost’s competitors who so requests                      the non-national spouse into that Member State (on
      access to its network on similar terms, which clearly                         the facts of this case an outstanding deportation
      indicates that the relationship between La Poste and                          order); and
      Chronopost does not entail a selective advantage for the
      benefit of Chronopost.
                                                                             b)     to accord the non-national spouse a right of entry
                                                                                into its territory?
—     Breach of the obligation to state reasons: The Court of
      First Instance ought properly to have explained the
      reasoning which led it to conclude — solely because of
      the existence of a reserved sector — that La Poste’s
      manner of taking into account its full costs was unsatisfac-
      tory.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta
                                                                        Förvaltningsdomstolen (Finnish Supreme Administrative
                                                                        Court) — by decision of that court of 8 March 2001 in
                                                                        the case of Paranova Oy, Esbo, v Läkemedelsverket
                                                                                (Medical Products Agency)
                                                                                (Case C-113/01)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration
Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom), by order of that court                                           (2001/C 150/23)
of 3 October 2000, in the case of Secretary of State for
        the Home Department against Hacene Akrich
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by a decision of the Högsta För-
                        (Case C-109/01)                                 valtningsdomstolen of 8 March 2001, which was received at
                                                                        the Court Registry on 14 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                        in the case of Paranova Oy, Esbo, v Läkemedelsverket on the
                        (2001/C 150/22)                                 following questions:
                                                                        1.   Is it compatible with Articles 28 and 30 EC for a national
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       agency to decide that a marketing authorisation for
European Communities by an order of the Immigration Appeal                   a medicinal product imported as a parallel import
Tribunal (United Kingdom) of 3 October 2000, which was                       automatically comes to an end if the original marketing
received at the Court Registry on 7 March 2001, for a                        authorisation for the medicinal product has been with-
preliminary ruling in the case of Secretary of State for the                 drawn at the holder’s request for reasons unconnected
Home Department against Hacene Akrich, on the following                      with the effectiveness or the safety of the medicinal
question:                                                                    product and despite the fact that the product has a valid
                                                                             marketing authorisation in the Member State from which
                                                                             the parallel imports come?
Where a national of a Member State is married to a third
country national who does not qualify under national legis-             2.   If Community law imposes restrictions or conditions on
lation to enter or reside in that Member State, and moves to                 the right of a national agency to decide that a marketing
another Member State with the non-national spouse, intending                 authorisation for parallel imports comes to an end in the
to exercise Community law rights by working there for only a                 situation referred to in Question 1, what importance
limited period of time in order thereafter to claim the benefit              should be accorded to the facts that
of Community law rights when returning to the Member State
of nationality together with the non-national spouse:
                                                                             a)     the holder of the original marketing authorisation
                                                                                has obtained a new marketing authorisation for a
(1) is the Member State of nationality entitled to regard the                       medicinal product designed to replace the original
      intention of the couple, when moving to the other                             medicinal product but that new product is not in
      Member State, to claim the benefit of Community law                           the same pharmaceutical form (tablets instead of
      rights when returning to the Member State of nationality,                     capsules) and the active ingredient is not exactly the
      notwithstanding the non-national spouse’s lack of qualifi-                    same (magnesium Omeprazole instead of Omepra-
      cation under national legislation, as a reliance on Com-                      zole); on the other hand, the national agency con-
      munity law in order to evade the application of national                      siders that the medicinal products are bioequivalent
      legislation; and                                                              and that they have the same therapeutic effect;


title: Action brought on 23 April 1997 by Carmen Gómez de Enterria against the European Parliament (Case T-131/97)

text:
12 . 7 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 212/29
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                from the date on which she was retired until her
                                                                            reinstatement, together with interest at the legal rate
— annul the decision of the Parliament not to promote                       of 8 % per annum,
     the applicant to Grade LA 4 for the promotions year
     1996 ,                                                            — annul, if necessary, the letter of 9 October 1996 from
                                                                            Klaus Hansch, President of the European Parliament,
— order the Parliament to pay the costs.                                    informing the applicant of the Bureau's decision,
                                                                            referred to above,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — order the European Parliament to pay the costs in
The applicant, an official in Grade LA 5 , challenges the                   their entirety.
European Parliament's decision not to promote him to
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Grade LA 4 for the promotions year 1996 . He maintains
that the Parliament has offered no explanation in                      The applicant states that the Court of First Instance
justification of its refusal to promote him, even though the           annulled a decision taken by the Parliament in 1994,
consultative committee on promotions had been                          retiring her from her post ( 1 ). Following that judgment,
recommending him since the promotions year 1995 . In his               the Parliament adopted a new decision by which it
submission , the contested decision is therefore vitiated by           'confirms' its 1994 decision retiring the applicant from her
a total failure to state reasons .
                                                                       post and rejects her candidature for the posts of Director
                                                                       General in DG I and of Special Adviser at the Epicentre in
The applicant further submits that the Parliament either               Brussels .
failed to carry out a comparative examination of the
merits of the applicant and other officials eligible for               The applicant maintains, first, that the Parliament did not
promotion to Grade LA 4, or carried out such an                        give effect to all the legal consequences entailed in the
examination without taking account of his staff reports                judgment of the Court of First Instance since, by virtue of
and without seeking information on his merits allowing                 being annulled, the unlawful decision adopted in 1994 is
their ' notional absence' to be compensated for. By                    retrospectively deemed never to have existed . Thus the
adopting the contested decision, the Parliament therefore              applicant should have been restored to the same legal
infringed Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, committed a             position as the one she had at the time when the annulled
manifest error of assessment and infringed the principle of            decision was adopted, and the Parliament was not entitled
equality of treatment between officials eligible for                   to use that decision as the basis for the decision contested
promotion.                                                             in the present case. Thus the Parliament has acted in
                                                                       contravention of Article 176 of the EC Treaty and the
                                                                       general principle of res judicata.
                                                                       Article 25 , second paragraph, and Article 50 of the Staff
                                                                       Regulations have also been infringed, in that the contested
 Action brought on 23 April 1997 by Carmen Gomez de                    decision does not enable the grounds for the applicant's
            Enterria against the European Parliament                   retirement from her post to be ascertained with certainty
                         ( Case T-131 /97 )                            and precision, nor does it establish that such a step was in
                                                                       the interests of the service, which would have enabled
                           ( 97/C 212/58
                                                                        Article 50 of the Staff Regulations to be properly invoked .
                 (Language of the case: French)                        The applicant also emphasizes that the manner of the
                                                                        decision's adoption gave her no opportunity to defend her
 An action against the European Parliament was brought                  interests effectively, since the appointing authority ( in this
 before the Court of First Instance of the European                     case, the Bureau of the Parliament) disregarded the
 Communities on 23 April 1997 by Carmen Gomez de                        observations which she had submitted concerning the issue
 Enterria, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Eric                  in question, which amounts to a breach of her right to a
 Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in          fair hearing.
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
 Fort Rheinsheim .                                                      Furthermore, the contested decision is vitiated, in that it is
                                                                        ultra vires and involves a misuse of powers, in so far as it
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                            was adopted on grounds other than the interests of the
                                                                        service stipulated by Article 50 of the Staff Regulations
 — annul the decision taken by the Bureau of the                        and in circumstances such that there is no legally
      European Parliament at its meeting of 15 and 16 July              acceptable justification for it . The applicant concludes that
      1996 ( Ref.: PE 251.357/BUR) in its capacity as                   the Parliament used its powers for purposes other than
      appointing authority,                                             those for which they were conferred .
 — as a consequence of the forthcoming judgment, rule                   Lastly, the applicant argues that the Parliament did not
      that, in accordance with Article 176 of the Treaty of             fulfil its obligation to take decisions affecting the personal
      Rome, the appointing authority must reinstate the                 circumstances of officials within a reasonable length of
      applicant with full rights, ensuring in particular that           time . The decision adopted by the Bureau at its meeting
      she is restored to the post from which she was retired,           on 15 and 16 July 1996 was not communicated to her
      at the same grade, and paid the salary arrears due                until 9 October 1996 , after she had addressed requests to
 ---pagebreak--- No C 212/30             I EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        12. 7. 97
the administration. As a result, despite its particularly                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
insecure nature, she was left in ignorance of her situation
for nearly three months . In the applicant's view, such                   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
conduct on the part of the Parliament is unacceptable and                 relied on in Case T-140/97.
caused her not only material damage, but also non
material damage .
(') Judgment of 14 May 1996 in Case T-82/95 ( OJ No C 180,
    22 . 6 . 1996 , p. 28 ).
                                                                          Action brought on 7 May 1997 by Natural Van Dam AG
                                                                          and Danser Container Line BV against the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-155/97)
Action brought on 29 April 1997 by Bernard Yasse                                                          ( 97/C 212/60 )
              against the European Investment Bank
                             ( Case T-141/97)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                               ( 97/C 212/59 )
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European
                    (Language of the case: French)                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities on 7 May 1997 by
 An action against the European Investment Bank was                       Natural Van Dam AG, a company incorporated under
 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European               Swiss law, and Danser Container Line BV, represented by
 Communities on 29 April 1997 by Bernard Yasse, residing                  J. Van Dam, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
 at Fauvillers ( Belgium), represented by Pascale Delvaux de              service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of F. Entringer,
 Fenffe and Pierre-Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar,                34a Rue Philippe II .
 with an address for service at Schouweiler ( Luxembourg )
 at the Chambers of Michel Hautem, 90 Route de Longwy.
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
 The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                          — annul the decision of the European Commission
 — annul the decision taken on 31 January 1997 by the                             of 7 March 1997 ( SG(97) D/1862 ), whereby
      European Investment Bank ( EIB ),                                           it was decided not to grant the applicants the
                                                                                exemption applied for under Article 8 ( 3 ) ( c ) of
 — as a consequence, order the applicant to be reinstated                         Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1101 /89 (*), and,
      in his duties,                                                              notwithstanding that decision, grant the exemption
                                                                                sought,
 — order the EIB to pay the applicant:
                                                                           — order the defendant to pay the costs .
      — upon his reinstatement, the sum of Bfrs 2 666 466
            — a provisional amount subject to increase in the              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
            course of the proceedings — representing salary
            arrears, together with Bfrs 1 000 000 by way of
            compensation for material and non-material                     The applicants operate a container line service on the
            damage,                                                        Rhine . They are contemplating the construction of three
                                                                           specialized vessels intended for the transportation of
      — should his reinstatement prove impossible :                        certain hazardous materials, in respect of which they
                                                                           have sought from the Commission exemption from
            — the sum of Bfrs 1 390 150 by way of ordinary                 the prohibition contained in Article 8 ( 1 ) of the
                compensatory settlement for lawful dismissal,              aforementioned Regulation .
            — the sum of Bfrs 35 986 625 subject to increase
                or adjustment in the course of the proceedings,            In their view, the rejection of their application is contrary
            — the sum of Bfrs 2 500 000 by way of                          to the objective of the regulation, which is not aimed at
                compensation for the loss of preferential rates            curbing the influx of new cargo capacity into the inland
                of interest on building loans,                             waterway system. The applicants further complain that
                                                                           the Commission 's assessment of the facts is incorrect and
             — Bfrs 1 000 000 by way of compensation for the                deficient and that its statement of reasons for its decision
                injury to his professional reputation,                      is defective .
  — order the EIB to pay the sum of Bfrs 300 000 to the                     ( 1 ) Council Regulation (EEC ) No 1101 /89 of 27 April 1989 on
       applicant in his capacity as legal guardian of the                         structural improvements in inland waterway transport ( OJ No
       person and property of his child who is a minor,                           L 116 , 28 . 4 . 1989, p. 25 ).
  — order the EIB to bear all costs .


title: Case C-133/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 14 March 2017 — Dănuț Podilă and Others v Societatea Națională de Transport Feroviar de Călători ‘CFR Călători’ SA București

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 14 March 2017 — Dănuț Podilă and Others v Societatea Națională de Transport Feroviar de Călători ‘CFR Călători’ SA București
   (Case C-133/17)
   (2017/C 202/14)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Cluj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Dănuț Podilă and Others

      Respondent: Societatea Națională de Transport Feroviar de Călători ‘CFR Călători’ SA București

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 114(3), 151 and 153 TFEU, and the provisions of Framework Directive 89/391/EEC (1) and the subsequent specific directives to be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from laying down time limits and procedures which limit access to judicial remedies for the purposes of classifying work places as characterised by particular or special conditions, with the result that workers’ rights to safety and health at work deriving from the assessment of those conditions, in accordance with the national provisions described in the request for a preliminary ruling, are not recognised?

               2.

               Does Article 9(a) of Directive 89/391/EEC preclude a national law which does not sanction an employer’s failure to obtain an assessment of the risks to safety and health during the period of employment?

      (1)  Council Directive of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).


title: Case C-63/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales) by order of that court dated 21 February 2003, in the case of Centralan Property Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

text:
C 85/18                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         3.4.2004
Action brought on 10 February 2004 by the Commission                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                         lic of Germany                                 —     declare that, by not implementing the laws, regulations
                                                                              and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                         (Case C-57/04)                                       Commission Directive 2002/70/EC (1) of 26 July 2002
                                                                              establishing requirements for the determination of levels
                                                                              of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in feedingstuffs, or in any
                         (2004/C 85/32)                                       event by failing to forward those provisions to the
                                                                              Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                              obligations under Article 3 of that directive;
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                   —     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 10 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Ulrich Wölker, Legal Adviser,
and Gregorio Valero Jordana, of the Commission’s Legal                  Pleas in law and main arguments
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.
                                                                        The period for transposition of the directive expired on
                                                                        28 February 2003.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations           (1) OJ L 209 of 6.8.2002, p. 15.
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission
      ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (1), or, in any
      event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
      Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under that directive;
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.           Justice (England and Wales) by order of that court dated
                                                                        21 February 2003, in the case of Centralan Property Ltd
                                                                               against Commissioners of Customs and Excise
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  (Case C-63/04)
The period for transposition of the directive expired on                                         (2004/C 85/34)
27 November 2002.
(1) OJ 2001 L 309, p. 22.                                               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                                                                        Justice (England and Wales) dated 21 February 2003, which
                                                                        was received at the Court Registry on 13 February 2004, for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the case of Centralan Property Ltd and
                                                                        Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the following
                                                                        question:
Action brought on 12 February 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                Where: During the period of adjustment provided for in
                                                                        article 20(2) of the Sixth VAT Directive (1) a taxable person
                                                                        disposes of a building which is treated as a capital good; and
                         (Case C-62/04)
                                                                        The disposal of the building is effected by way of two supplies,
                                                                        being (i) the grant of a 999 year lease of the building (an
                         (2004/C 85/33)                                 exempt transaction under article 13(B)(b) of the Directive) for
                                                                        a premium of £6 million, followed three days later by (ii) the
                                                                        sale of the freehold reversion (a taxable transaction under
                                                                        article 13(B)(g) and article 4(3)(a) of the Directive) for a
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the           price of £1,000 plus VAT and which either are or are not
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 February             preordained in the sense that once the first had been carried
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     out there was no chance that the second would not be, is
represented by Chiara Cattabriga, of its Legal Service, acting as       article 20(3) of the Sixth VAT Directive to be interpreted so
Agent.                                                                  that:
 ---pagebreak--- 3.4.2004                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 85/19
(a)    the capital good is regarded until the expiry of the period         2.    Is Article 6(2) applicable when determining which court
       of adjustment as if it had been applied for business                      has jurisdiction to entertain an action on a warranty or
       activities which are presumed to be fully taxed;                          guarantee or third-party proceedings between insurers
                                                                                and, if so, is such application contingent on there being a
(b) the capital good is regarded until the expiry of the period                  connection between the various claims within the mean-
       of adjustment as if it had been applied for business                      ing of Article 22 of the convention or, at the very least,
       activities which are presumed to be fully exempt;                         on evidence that there is sufficient connection between
                                                                                such claims to demonstrate that there has been no
       or                                                                        avoidance of jurisdiction?
(c)    the capital good is regarded until the expiry of the period
       of adjustment as if it had been applied for business
       activities which are presumed to be partly taxed and
       partly exempt in the proportion of the respective values
       of the taxed sale of the freehold reversion and the exempt
       grant of the 999 year lease?
                                                                           Action brought on 19 February 2004 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC OF 17 May 1977 on the                                          of Luxembourg
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform
    basis of assessment. OJ L 145, 13.6.1977 p. 1-40.                                                  (Case C-79/04)
                                                                                (2004/C 85/36)
                                                                           An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de                          ties on 19 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
Cassation, première chambre civile, (France) by order of                   Communities, represented by M. Patakia and B. Schima, acting
that Court of 20 January 2004 in the case of GIE Réunion                   as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
européenne, Axa, Winterthur, Le Continent, Assurances
mutuelles de France against Zurich Seguros, now Zurich
España, and Société Pyrénéenne de Transit d’Automobiles                    The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                           ‘Soptrans’ SA                                   the Court should:
                                                                           1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                          (Case C-77/04)                                         and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Commission Directive 2002/40/EC of 8 May 2002
                                                                                implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard
                          (2004/C 85/35)                                         to energy labelling of household electric ovens (1), or in
                                                                                any event by failing to forward those provisions to the
                                                                                Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
                                                                                to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Cour de Cassation,                    2.    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
première chambre civile (Court of Cassation, first civil chamb-
er) (France) of 20 January 2004, received at the Court Registry
on 17 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of GIE Réunion européenne,Axa, Winterthur, Le Continent,                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Assurances mutuelles de France against Zurich Seguros, now
Zurich España, and Société Pyrénéenne de Transit d’Automob-
iles ‘Soptrans’ SA on the following questions:
                                                                           The period for transposition of the directive expired on
                                                                           31 December 2002.
1.     Are actions between insurers on a warranty or guarantee
       based on multiple insurance or co-insurance rather than
       on a reinsurance agreement covered by the provisions on             (1) OJ L 128 of 15.5.2002, p. 45.
       matters relating to insurance of Section 3 of Title II of the
       Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, as amended
       by the accession convention of 1978?


title: Case T-380/05: Action brought on  10 October 2005  — Buendía Sierra v Commission

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/24

         Action brought on 10 October 2005 — Buendía Sierra v Commission
   (Case T-380/05)
   (2006/C 10/47)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: José Buendía Sierra (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. van der Woude, V. Landes, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Director General of the Legal Service to award him only four Directorate-General priority points for the 2004 promotion exercise, which was confirmed and made definitive by the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting his internal appeal;

               —

               annul the Appointing Authority's decision not to award him any ‘Promotion Committee for additional activity in the interests of the institution’ special priority points for the 2004 promotion exercise;

               —

               annul the Appointing Authority's decision to award him a total of 20 points for the 2004 promotion exercise and a total of 40 points for the purpose of promotion to Grade A4 during that exercise; the merit list of Grade A5 officials for the 2004 promotion exercise, the list of officials promoted to Grade A4 in the 2004 promotion exercise and, in any event, the decision not to enter his name in those lists;

               —

               annul, so far as may be necessary, the decision rejecting his complaint;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant advances pleas similar to those he advanced previously in Case T-311/04 (1), an action also brought by him.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004, p. 44


title: Assignment of Judges to Chambers

text:
C 112/24              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           10.5.2003
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
             Assignment of Judges to Chambers                             G. Arendt, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                          against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                        (2003/C 112/42)                                   C. Cattabriga and A. Dal Ferro) — application for the
                                                                          annulment of Commission decision C(1999) 2183 of 5 August
                                                                          1999, first, discontinuing the financial aid granted to the
At its plenary meeting on 2 April 2003, the Court of First                applicant by Commission decision C(91) 654/87 of 29 April
Instance decided, pursuant to Article 10 of the Rules of                  1991 in the framework of project IT/0166/91/01, entitled
Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in respect of the               ‘Modernisation of an aquaculture production unit at Contarina
period ending on 30 September 2003, to assign Judge Martins               (Veneto)’ and for an order directing the applicant to repay to
Ribeiro to the First Chamber, to the First Chamber, Extended              the Commission ITL 420 810 718 (EUR 217 330,59) — the
Composition, and to the Fifth Chamber, Extended Compo-                    Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
sition.                                                                   R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij,
                                                                          Judges; Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the
                                                                          Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 March 2003, in which
Consequently, the composition of the Chambers as decided on
                                                                          it:
4 July 2002 (OJ C 202 of 24 August 2002, p. 19) is modified
as follows:
                                                                          1.     Dismisses the application;
First Chamber                                                             2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those of the
                                                                                proceedings for interim measures.
B. Vesterdorf (President of the Chamber), H. Legal and M.E.
Martins Ribeiro, Judges.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
First Chamber, Extended Composition
B. Vesterdorf (President of the Chamber), J. Azizi, M. Jaeger,
H. Legal and M.E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges.
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition
R. García-Valdecasas (President of the Chamber), P. Lindh,                                          of 4 March 2003
J.D. Cooke, H. Legal and M.E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges.
                                                                          in Case T-319/99: Federación Nacional de Empresas de
                                                                          Instrumentación Científica, Médica, Técnica y Dental
                                                                           (FENIN) v Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Public
                                                                          health service — Late payment of invoices — Complaint
                       of 12 March 2003                                         submitted by suppliers — Definition of undertaking)
in Case T-254/99: Maja Srl v Commission of the European
                                                                                (2003/C 112/44)
                        Communities (1)
(Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 — Community aid — Sale                                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
of business — Implementation of project — Procedure for
        discontinuance of aid — Action for annulment)
                        (2003/C 112/43)                                   In Case T-319/99, Federación Nacional de Empresas de
                                                                          Instrumentación Científica, Médica, Técnica y Dental (FENIN),
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                         established in Madrid (Spain), represented by R. García-
                                                                          Gallardo Gil-Fournier, G. Pérez Olmo and D. Domínguez
                                                                          Pérez, lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities
In Case T-254/99: Maja Srl, formerly Ca’Pasta Srl, established            (Agents: W. Wils, É. Gippini-Fournier and J. Rivas Andrés):
in Padua (Italy), represented by P. Piva, R. Mastroianni and              Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of


1.9.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 245/31
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Removal from the Register of Cases T-31/97 to T-36/97,
                                                                        T-45/97, T-78/97, T-79/97, T-82/97, T-88/97 to T-98/97,
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 3 August        T-100/97 to T-105/97, T-114/97 to T-120/97, T-129/97,
      2000 inasmuch as it does not acknowledge that the                 T-133/97, T-135/97 to T-138/97, T-150/97 to T-153/97,
      applicant’s administrative status is irregular and refuses        T-157/97, T-158/97, T-174/97, T-180/97, T-208/97 and
      to compensate him for material and non-material damage                                       T-209/97 (1)
      suffered by him
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                                      (2001/C 245/51)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant challenges the decision to bring to a close the           By order of 12 June 2001, the President of the Court of First
administrative inquiry concerning the duties carried out by the         Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
applicant, inasmuch as that decision rejects his request for a          removal from the Register of Cases T-31/97 to T-36/97,
finding that his administrative status is irregular and to be           T-45/97, T-78/97, T-79/97, T-82/97, T-88/97 to T-98/97,
compensated for material and non-material damage suffered               T-100/97 to T-105/97, T-114/97 to T-120/97, T-129/97,
by him. That inquiry shows that the arrangements had broken             T-133/97, T-135/97 to T-138/97, T-150/97 to T-153/97,
down both as to the allocation and the execution of tasks               T-157/97, T-158/97, T-174/97, T-180/97, T-208/97 and
entrusted to the applicant.                                             T-209/97, Francisco Fernandez Ruiz and Others v Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities.
In support of his application, the applicant alleges:
                                                                        (1) OJ C 131 of 26.4.97, C 142 of 10.5.97, C 166 of 31.5.97, C 181
—     breach of the obligation to provide reasons;                          of 14.6.97, C 199 of 28.6.97, C 212 of 12.7.97, C 228 of
                                                                            26.7.97, C 271 of 6.9.97 et C 7 of 10.1.98.
—     manifest error of assessment;
—     breach of the principle of sound administration;
—     breach of the rights of the defence.
                                                                               Removal from the Register of Case T-190/99 (1)
       Removal from the Register of Case T-258/93 (1)                                            (2001/C 245/52)
                        (2001/C 245/50)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        By order of 4 April 2001, the President of the Fifth Chamber
By order of 14 May 2001, the President of the Fourth Chamber            (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
(Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the            European Communities has ordered the removal from the
European Communities has ordered the removal from the                   Register of Case T-190/99, Sniace S.A. v Commission of the
Register of Case T-258/93, H&R Ecroyd Limited v Council                 European Communities.
of the European Union and Commission of the European
Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.99.
(1) OJ C 165 of 2.7.92.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 4 August 1999 in Case T-106/98: Fratelli Murri SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Limitation period)

text:
30.10.1999            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 314/9
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant in the context of
                                                                          the implementation of the ‘Baardaheere Agricultural Exper-
                     of 21 September 1999                                 imental Station’ project, as a result of events occurring in the
                                                                          Democratic Republic of Somalia — the Court of First Instance
                                                                          (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and
in Case T-157/98: Graça Oliveira v European Parliament (1)                J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
                                                                          order on 4 August 1999, the operative part of which is as
(Officials — Promotion — Examination of comparative                       follows:
                               merits)
                                                                          1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
                         (1999/C 314/20)
                                                                          2. The applicant is to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the
                                                                               Commission.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
In Case T-157/98: Graça Oliveira, an official of the European
Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noël
Louis and Françoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire
Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v European Parliament
(Agent: Joao Sant’Anna) — application for annulment of the
Parliament’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade
B 4 in the course of the 1997 promotions procedure — the                  ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jae-                                        INSTANCE
ger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; B. Pastor,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 21 September 1999, in which it:                                                                 of 20 July 1999
1. Dismisses the action;                                                  in Case T-59/99 R: Ventouris Group Enterprises SA v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                          (Competition — Payment of the fine — Bank guarantee —
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.                                                Procedure for interim measures — Suspension of enforce-
                                                                                ment)
                                                                                (1999/C 314/22)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                          In Case T-59/99 R: Ventouris Group Enterprises SA, established
                                                                          in Panama, represented by Maria Proestou and Maria Velma-
                        of 4 August 1999                                  chou, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at the Chambers of Claude Medernach, 8-10 Rue
in Case T-106/98: Fratelli Murri SpA v Commission of the                  Mathias Hardt, v Commission of the European Communities
                  European Communities (1)                                (Agents: Dimitris Triantafyllou and Richard Lyal) — appli-
                                                                          cation, first, for suspension of enforcement of Commission
(Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Limi-                   Decision 1999/271/EC of 9 December 1998 relating to a
                           tation period)                                 proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.466
                                                                          — Greek Ferries) (OJ 1999 L 109, p. 24), in that it imposes on
                                                                          the applicant a fine of ECU 1.01 million for breach of
                         (1999/C 314/21)                                  Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC), and, second,
                                                                          for the unconditional release of the applicant from its obli-
                                                                          gation to furnish a bank guarantee as a condition of the
                  (Language of the case: German)                          non-immediate recovery of the amount of the fine imposed by
                                                                          the decision — the President of the Court of First Instance
In Case T-106/98: Fratelli Murri SpA, established in Rome,                made an order on 20 July 1999, the operative part of which is
represented by Karl-Gustav von Luschka, Rechtsanwalt, Dres-               as follows:
den, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Claude Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v                   1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Etienne
Lasnet and Barbara Brandtner) — application for damages                   2. The costs are reserved.
pursuant to Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC)
and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty
(now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) on account of


title: Case T-305/14: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Vestolit v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/27

         Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Vestolit v Commission
   (Case T-305/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 245/33)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Vestolit GmbH (Marl, Germany) (represented by: D. Greinacher, J. Martin and B. Scholtka, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. von Donat and G. Quardt, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               3.

               Vestolit GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-86/07: Action brought on 15 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/24

         Action brought on 15 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-86/07)
   (2007/C 82/45)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and E. De Persio, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (1), or by failing in any event to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2003/110/EC expired on 5 December 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 321, p. 26.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2001 in Case T-331/99: Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word mark Giroform — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Descriptive character)

text:
C 134/20               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.5.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                v European Parliament (Agents: H. von Hertzen and J. Sant’An-
                                                                           na) — application for annulment, first, of the decision of the
                      of 14 December 2000                                  European Parliament rejecting the application by the applicant
                                                                           for the post of Deputy Head of the French Translation Division,
in Case T-213/99: Luc Verheyden v Commission of the                        as referred to in Vacancy Notice No 8503, and, second, of the
                   European Communities (1)                                decision appointing Ms W. to that post — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President,
(Officials — Action for annulment — Measures and instruc-                  and M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
tions falling within the ambit of discipline in the workplace              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
— Measure adversely affecting an official — Action for                     15 November 2000, in which it:
                  damages — Inadmissibility)
                                                                           1.    Annuls the decision of the European Parliament rejecting the
                          (2001/C 134/42)                                        application by the applicant and appointing Ms W. to the post
                                                                                of Deputy Head of the French Translation Division, as referred
                                                                                to in Vacancy Notice No 8503;
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           2.    Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs.
In Case T-213/99: Luc Verheyden, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, residing at Angera
(Italy), represented by E. Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an          (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and A. Dal
Ferro) — application, first, for annulment of the note dated
10 November 1998 from the head of the Logistics unit in
the Infrastructure Directorate for the Ispra site and of the
administration’s refusal dated 16 November 1998 to withdraw
that note, and, second, for compensation for the non-material
damage allegedly suffered — the Court of First Instance (Fifth                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, and R. Garcı́a-
Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 December                                    of 31 January 2001
2000, in which it:
                                                                           in Case T-331/99: Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld GmbH
1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible;                                v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                                marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                           (Community trade mark — Word mark Giroform — Absol-
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                                                                           ute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Descriptive character)
                                                                                (2001/C 134/44)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                     of 15 November 2000
                                                                           In Case T-331/99: Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld GmbH,
  in Case T-261/99: Jean Dehon v European Parliament (1)                   formerly Stora Carbonless Paper GmbH, established in Bielefeld
                                                                           (Germany), represented by U. Ulrich, Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf,
(Officials — Promotion — Notice of vacancy — Examin-                       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Office de
     ation of comparative merits — Equal opportunities)                    Brevets Ernest T. Freylinger, 234 Route d’Arlon, against Office
                                                                           for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and
                          (2001/C 134/43)                                  Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: E. Joly, P. von Kapff, and A. von
                                                                           Mühlendahl) — application for annulment of the decision of
                                                                           the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                   (Language of the case: French)                          the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 8 September
                                                                           1999 in Case R 175/1999-3 refusing registration of the word
In Case T-261/99: Jean Dehon, an official of the European                  ‘Giroform’ as a Community trade mark — the Court of First
Parliament, residing at Hagen (Luxembourg), represented by                 Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President,
J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmentier and V. Peere, of the Brussels Bar,           R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Société de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 13 Avenue du Bois,                     31 January 2001, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 5.5.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 134/21
1.    Dismissed the application;                                               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    Ordered the applicant to pay the costs.                                                    of 17 January 2001
                                                                          in Case T-124/99: Autosalone Ispra dei Fretelli Rossi Snc
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.                                                   v European Atomic Energy Authority, represented by the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Action for compensation — Non-contractual liability —
                                                                          Flood — Obstruction of a drain — Time-limit — No effect
                                                                                on running of time)
                                                                                (2001/C 134/46)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                        of 18 January 2001
                                                                          In Case T-124/99: Autosalone Ispra dei Fratelli Rossi Snc,
                                                                          established in Ispra (Italy), represented by F. Venuti, of the
in Case T-65/00: Angeliki Ioannou v Council of the                        Busto Arsizio Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                        European Union (1)                                at the Chambers of A. Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-Adelaïde,
                                                                          against European Atomic Energy Community, represented
(Officials — Refusal of recruitment — Physical unfitness                  by the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
— Opinion of the medical board — Judicial review —                        H. Speyart and P. Stancanelli) — application for a declaration
Comprehensible link between the medical findings and the                  that the European Atomic Energy Community is liable for the
                      conclusion of unfitness)                            harm sustained by the applicant following a flood in Ispra
                                                                          during the night of 1-2 June 1992 and, accordingly, for an
                                                                          order that that Community is to make good that damage —
                         (2001/C 134/45)                                  the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
                                                                          A.W.H. Meij, President, and A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
                                                                          H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 17 January 2001, the
                    (Language of the case: French)                        operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                          1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
In Case T-65/00: Angeliki Ioannou, a former employee of the
Economic Union between Belgium, the Netherlands and                       2.    The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those
Luxembourg (Benelux) assigned to the Schengen Secretariat,                      incurred by the Commission.
residing in Brussels, represented by J. van Rossum, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the            (1) OJ C 226, 7.8.1999, p. 39.
offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 13 Avenue du Bois, v
Council of the European Union (Agents: F. Anton and M. Bauer)
— application for annulment of the Council’s decision of
21 May 1999 refusing to appoint the applicant a probationary
official upon the integration of the Schengen Secretariat into
the General Secretariat of the Council on the ground of
physical unfitness to perform the duties envisaged — the Court                  ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi,
President, and K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio                                      of 9 January 2001
González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
ment on 18 January 2001, in which it:                                     in Case T-149/00: Innova, Centro Euromediterraneo per
                                                                          lo Sviluppo Sostenibile v Commission of the European
1.    Annuls the decision of the Council of 21 May 1999 refusing                                    Communities (1)
      to appoint the applicant a probationary official upon the
      integration of the Schengen Secretariat into the Secretariat of     (Action for annulment — Action concerning what is in fact
      the Council on the ground of physical unfitness to perform the      a dispute of a contractual nature — Lack of jurisdiction of
      duties envisaged;                                                                      the Court of First Instance)
2.    Orders the Council to pay the costs.                                                         (2001/C 134/47)
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.                                                                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-149/00: Innova, Centro Euromediterraneo per lo
                                                                          Sviluppo Sostenibile, established at Calatafimi (Italy), represent-