title: Case T-398/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Stowarzyszenie Autorów ZAiKS v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies — Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences — Proof — Presumption of innocence)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Stowarzyszenie Autorów ZAiKS v Commission
   (Case T-398/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)
   2013/C 156/45
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Stowarzyszenie Autorów ZAiKS (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: B. Borkowska and M. Błeszyński, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Stowarzyszenie Autorów ZAiKS);

               2.

               Annuls Article 4(2) and (3) of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final, to the extent that they refer to Article 3 of that decision, in so far as they concern Stowarzyszenie Autorów ZAiKS;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the main proceedings.

               5.

               Orders Autorów ZAiKS and the Commission to each bear their own costs relating to the interim relief proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Case T-606/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/22

         Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-606/14)
   2014/C 361/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               in consequence, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing measures, insofar as they concern the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)

      (1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.


title: Case T-44/13: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2014  — AbbVie v EMA

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/30

         Order of the General Court of 17 July 2014 — AbbVie v EMA
   (Case T-44/13) (1)

   2014/C 361/45
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


title: Case C-57/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 February 2011 — Vodafone España, S.A. v Ayuntamiento de Tudela

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 February 2011 — Vodafone España, S.A. v Ayuntamiento de Tudela
   (Case C-57/11)
   2011/C 139/23
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Vodafone España, S.A.

      Respondent: Ayuntamiento de Tudela

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a fee may be required for the right to install facilities on municipal public land from operating undertakings which, without being proprietors of the network, use it to provide mobile telephony services?

               2.

               In the event that the levy is found to be compatible with Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC, do the conditions in accordance with which the fee is required under the contested local regulation satisfy the requirements of objectivity, proportionality and non-discrimination laid down in that provision, together with the need to ensure the optimal use of the resources concerned?

               3.

               Is it appropriate to recognise Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC as having direct effect?

      (1)  OJ L 108, p. 21


title: Action brought on 29 October 1997 by Germain Thinus against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-283/97)

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 7/23
(b) order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs,                  Action brought on 29 October 1997 by Germain Thinus
      including those incurred in the prelitigation                  against the Commission of the European Communities
      procedure.                                                                         (Case T-283/97)
                                                                                (98/C 7/65)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant, a limited liability company governed by             An action against the Commission of the European
Italian law, which collaborated with the European                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
institutions in the context of the MED programmes,                 Instance of the European Communities on 29 October
objects to the criticisms made of it by the Court of               1997 by Germain Thinus, residing at Hellange
Auditors in its Special Report 1/96 on the MED                     (Luxembourg), represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry
Programmes (1). The report was brought about as a result           Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of
of it having become apparent that there were serious              the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
irregularities and mismanagement', according to the Court          Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30,
itself. Basically, the Court's criticism is focused on the         rue de Cessange.
alleged lack of budgetary resources necessary for what the
Court considers to be a delegation of powers to bodies
outside the Community administration. Other factual and            The applicant claims that the Court should:
legal points are made on the basis of that criticism. In
particular, the Court emphasizes the confusion of
                                                                   Ð annul the decision not to promote him to grade B 3 in
interests' which had arisen in the MED's management
                                                                       the context of the 1997 promotion procedure,
system, expressly citing the applicant company as one of
the parties favoured, substantially wrongly, by the system.
                                                                   Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant claims first of all that the rights of the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
defence, a fundamental principle of Community law, have
been infringed inasmuch as the findings and the report of
the facts contained in the report were discussed and made          The applicant contests the appointing authority's refusal
public without any prior notification to those concerned           to promote him in grade in the context of the 1997
and without the necessary explanations or even                     promotion procedure. He states in that regard that he had
information relevant to a better understanding of the facts        been entered on the list of officials proposed by his
and conduct being duly requested or allowed to be                  directorate for promotion to grade B 3 in 1996. He was
properly argued. Admittedly, Article 206 (1) of the Treaty         rejected for promotion solely on account of his having
of Rome only mentions the institutions when prescribing            been transferred within DG V. The applicant further states
that the Court's reports should be accompanied by the              that he is the only person possessing a staff report
replies of those under investigation. Nonetheless, that            showing him to have performed better than certain
expression cannot be interpreted restrictively as if the right     officials who have been promoted.
to a hearing and of the defence were a privilege of the
Community institutions stricto sensu.
                                                                   In support of his claims, he advances the following pleas
                                                                   in law:
The applicant maintains that the actual points made by
the Court of Auditors are unfounded. With regard, in               Ð infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations,
particular, to the alleged confusion of interests' and the            inasmuch as, if a careful and impartial examination of
allegedly privileged position of Ismeri Europa, the                    the comparative merits of the officials eligible for
applicants consider that there is no conflict of interest              promotion had been carried out in accordance with
where the principal may make decisions over the agent's                the principle of equal treatment, the contested decision
head or authorizes the signing of contracts and determines             would not have been adopted. Consequently, that
the contents, terms and conditions thereof. Thus, in the               decision was adopted in breach of the promotion
present case decision-making remained at all times in the              procedure and is vitiated by a manifest error of
hands of the Commission. According to the applicant, the               assessment committed at the time when the merits of
institutional and functional structure of the MED                      the candidates were being considered,
programmes was intended on the whole to be purely a
work tool of the Commission, which was undeniably in               Ð failure to fulfil the obligation to provide a statement
charge.                                                                of reasons, inasmuch as, throughout the pre-litigation
                                                                       procedure, the applicant was not informed of the
(1) OJ C 240, 19. 8. 1996, p. 1.                                       reasons which had led to the adoption of the contested
                                                                       decision.


title: Case C-135/01: Action brought on 22 March 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 161/10                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2.6.2001
Action brought on 22 March 2001 by the Commission of                     Action brought on 22 March 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                    the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                              of Germany                                                              of Germany
                           (Case C-134/01)                                                          (Case C-135/01)
                           (2001/C 161/18)                                                          (2001/C 161/19)
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                    An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 22 March 2001 by the Commission of the European                  ties on 22 March 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Gerald Braun, of its Legal Service,          Communities, represented by Gerald Braun, of its Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of               with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Gérard Berscheid, Legal Adviser in the Legal Service of the              Gérard Berscheid, Legal Adviser in the Legal Service of the
European Commission, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                     European Commission, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) declare that, by failing within the prescribed time-limit to         (1) declare that, by failing within the prescribed time-limit to
      adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative                       adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative
      measures necessary in order to transpose into national                   measures necessary in order to transpose into national
      law the provisions of Council Directive 98/57/EC of                      law the provisions of Council Directive 98/56/EC of
      20 July 1998 (1) on the control of Ralstonia solanacearum                20 July 1998 (1) on the marketing of propagating material
      (Smith) Yabuuchi et al., the Federal Republic of Germany                 of ornamental plants, the Federal Republic of Germany
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and             has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and
      under the said directive;                                                under the said directive;
(2) order the defendant to pay the costs.                                (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those               The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
in Case C-132/01 (2); the time-limit for transposition prescribed        in Case C-134/01 (2); the time-limit for transposition prescribed
by Article 12(1) of the directive expired on 21 August 1999.             by Article 19(1) of the directive expired on 1 July 1999.
(1) OJ L 235, 1998, p. 1.                                                (1) OJ L 226, 1998, p. 16.
(2) See p. 9 of the Official Journal.                                    (2) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.


5.4.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 83/17
        Removal from the register of Case C-444/01 ( 1)                from the register of Case C-215/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling by the Sozialgericht Stuttgart): Karin Müller v Postbeam-
                         (2003/C 83/35)                                tenkrankenkasse.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.
By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-444/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Stadt Villingen-
Schwenningen v Ophilia Akosua Owusu.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-241/02 P ( 1)
( 1) OJ C 84 of 06.4.2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 83/39)
                                                                       By order of 6 January 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
        Removal from the register of Case   C-61/02 (1)
                                                                       from the register of Case C-241/02 P: International and
                                                                       European Public Services Organisation (IPSO) v European
                         (2003/C 83/36)
                                                                       Central Bank.
By order of 19 December 2002 the President of the Court of             (1 ) OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-61/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria.
( 1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-337/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/40)
        Removal from the register of Case C-191/02 ( 1)                By order of 4 February 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                         (2003/C 83/37)                                from the register of Case C-337/02: Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities v Italian Republic.
By order of 16 December 2002 the President of the Court of             (1 ) OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-191/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
( 1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-368/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/41)
        Removal from the register of Case C-215/02 ( 1)
                                                                       By order of 23 January 2003 the President of the Court of
                         (2003/C 83/38)                                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-368/02: Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
By order of 16 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                (1 ) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 July 2000 in Case C-45/97: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1992 and 1993 financial years)

text:
21.10.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 302/9
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            of 4 July 2000                                                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 6 July 2000
in Case C-352/98 P: Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Berga-
derm SA and Jean-Jacques Goupil v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)                               in Case C-45/97: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
(Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the Community —
                 Adoption of Directive 95/34/EC)                           (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1992 and 1993
                                                                                financial years)
                           (2000/C 302/15)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/16)
                     (Language of the case: French)                                            (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                             in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-45/97: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de
In Case C-352/98 P: Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm
                                                                           Lapuerta) v Commission of the European Communities
SA, in liquidation, established at Rungis, France, and Jean-
                                                                           (Agents: A.M. Alves Vieira and B. Vilá Costa) — application
Jacques Goupil, residing at Chevreuse, France, represented by
                                                                           for partial annulment of Commission Decision 96/701/EC of
J.-P. Spitzer and Y.-M. Moray, of the Paris Bar, with an address
                                                                           20 November 1996 amending Decision 96/311/EC on the
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398
                                                                           clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in
Route d’Esch — appeal against the judgment of the Court of
                                                                           respect of the expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section
First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber)
                                                                           of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
of 16 July 1998 in Case T-199/96 Bergaderm and Goupil v
                                                                           (EAGGF) and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993 (OJ
Commission [1998] ECR II-2805, seeking to have that judg-
                                                                           1996 L 323, p. 26), as regards the part thereof relating to
ment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being
                                                                           Spain — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kap-
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: P. Van
                                                                           teyn, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch
Nuffel, assisted by A. Barav), supported by French Republic
                                                                           (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
(Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Loosli-Surrans) — the
                                                                           General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 July
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
                                                                           2000, in which it:
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and
R. Schintgen, (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn,
J.-R. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet, V. Skou-             1.    Annuls Commission Decision 96/701/EC of 20 November
ris and F. Macken, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General;                        1996 amending Decision 96/311/EC on the clearance of the
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-                     accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the
trar, has given a judgment on 4 July 2000, in which it:                          expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section of the European
                                                                                Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and in
                                                                                respect of certain expenditure for 1993, as regards the part
1.     Dismisses the appeal;                                                     thereof relating to Spain, in so far as it refuses to charge to the
                                                                                EAGGF all of the aid granted to the Olivar de Segura
                                                                                Cooperative and to the undertaking Agroalimentaria Minerva;
2.     Orders Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA, in liqui-
       dation, and Jean-Jacques Goupil to pay the costs;
                                                                           2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3.     Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
                                                                           3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.


title: Case C-45/02: Action brought on 15 February 2002 by Commission of the European Communities against Portuguese Republic

text:
C 97/4                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20.4.2002
(3) Are the same provisions of Regulation 896/2001 incom-               Pleas in law and main arguments
     patible with Council Regulation EEC No 404/93 (2) of
     13 February 1993 (with subsequent amendments and
     additions), in particular with Article 20 thereof?
                                                                        Under the first paragraph of Article 10 and the third paragraph
                                                                        of Article 249 of the EC Treaty, Member States must adopt the
(4) If the answer given to the preceding questions is in the            measures necessary to transpose directives addressed to them
     negative, the Court is asked to state whether, by preclu-          into their domestic law before the expiry of the period
     ding persons related to traditional operators from being           prescribed for doing so. That period expired on 29 September
     granted a tariff quota even as ‘non-traditional operators’,        2000 without Portugal having brought into force the necessary
     Article 6 of the aforementioned Commission regulation,             provisions.
     in particular subparagraph (c) thereof, conflicts with the
     fundamental right to pursue a professional activity,
     viewed in relation to the freedom to conduct a business.
                                                                        (1) OJ 2000 L 173, p. 1.
(1) OJ L 126, 8.5.2001, p. 6.
(2) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1.
                                                                        Action brought on 15 February 2002 by Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against Portuguese Republic
Action brought on 15 February 2002 by Commission of
 the European Communities against Portuguese Republic                                             (Case C-45/02)
                         (Case C-44/02)                                                           (2002/C 97/09)
                         (2002/C 97/08)
                                                                        An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                   15 February 2002 by the Commission of the European
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on              Communities, represented by António Caeiros, acting as
15 February 2002 by the Commission of the European                      Agent.
Communities, represented by António Caeiros, acting as
Agent.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
—    Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                   within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
     within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                   administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with                       mission Directive 2000/2/EC of 14 January 2000 adapt-
     Directive 2000/25/EC of the European Parliament and of                   ing to technical progress Council Directive 75/322/EEC
     the Council of 22 May 2000 on action to be taken against                 relating to the suppression of radio interference produced
     the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants by                    by spark-ignition engines fitted to wheeled agricultural
     engines intended to power agricultural or forestry tractors              or forestry tractors and Council Directive 74/150/EEC
     and amending Council Directive 74/150/EEC(1), the                        relating to the type-approval of wheeled agricultural or
     Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations                 forestry tractors (1), the Portuguese Republic has failed
     under Article 9 of the aforementioned Directive                          to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of Directive
     2000/25/EC; and                                                          2000/2/EC;
—    In the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform the         —     In the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform
     Commission of such provisions, the Portuguese Republic                   the Commission immediately of such provisions, the
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of the              Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
     aforementioned Directive 2000/25/EC;                                     under Article 4 of Directive 2000/2/EC;
—    Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                    —     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.4.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 97/5
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 20 February 2002 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the United King-
                                                                                dom
Pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case C-44/02 (2); the time-limit for transposition
expired on 21 December 2000.                                                                        (Case C-52/02)
(1) OJ 2000 L 173, p. 1.
(2) See page 4 of this OJ.                                                                         (2002/C 97/11)
                                                                          An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 February
Action brought on 19 February 2002 by the Commission                      2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
        of the European Communities against Ireland                       represented by Michael Shotter, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg.
                            (Case C-51/02)
                            (2002/C 97/10)                                The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                       and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Justice of the European Communities on 19 February 2002 by                      Directive 2000/71/EC (1) of 7 November 2000 to adapt
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                         the measuring methods as laid down in Annexes I, II,
by Marie Wolfcarius and Michael Shotter, acting as Agents,                      III and IV to Directive 98/70/EC (2) of the European
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                      Parliament and of the Council to technical progress as
                                                                                foreseen in Article 10 of that Directive or, in any event,
                                                                                by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission,
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                     the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)
1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                    and 2(2) of this Directive;
      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Commission Directive 1999/52/EC(1) of 26 May 1999
      adapting to technical progress Council Directive                    2)    order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
      96/96/EC (2) on the approximation of the laws of the
      Member States relating to roadworthiness tests for motor
      vehicles and their trailers, or in any event by failing to
      inform the Commission of those measures, Ireland has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
2)    order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                          Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
                                                                          implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
                                                                          period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to            expired on 1 January 2001 without the United Kingdom
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by             having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the             directive referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
expired on 1 October 2000 without Ireland having enacted
the provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
to in the conclusions of the Commission.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 287, 14.11.2000, p. 46.
                                                                          (2) of 13 October 1998 (OJ L 350, 28.12.1998, p. 58).
(1) OJ L 142, 5.6.1999, p. 26.
(2) of 20 December 1996 (OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 1).


title: Case C-251/08 P: Appeal brought on 3 June 2008 by Mr Ammayappan Ayyanarsamy against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 April 2008 in Case T-412/07 Ammayappan Ayyanarsamy v Commission of the European Communities and the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/22

         Appeal brought on 3 June 2008 by Mr Ammayappan Ayyanarsamy against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 April 2008 in Case T-412/07 Ammayappan Ayyanarsamy v Commission of the European Communities and the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-251/08 P)
   2009/C 141/38
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Ammayappan Ayyanarsamy (represented by: H. Kotzur, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, Federal Republic of Germany
   By order of 17 March 2009 the Court (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Ayyanarsamy to bear his own costs.


title: Case F-97/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 November 2010 — Taillard v Parliament (Civil service — Official — Successive sick leave — Arbitration — Finding that the applicant was able to work — Refusal of new duly issued medical certificate — No medical examination — Sick leave deducted from annual leave — Inadmissibility — Action for annulment and damages)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/62

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 November 2010 — Taillard v Parliament
   (Case F-97/09) (1)

   (Civil service - Official - Successive sick leave - Arbitration - Finding that the applicant was able to work - Refusal of new duly issued medical certificate - No medical examination - Sick leave deducted from annual leave - Inadmissibility - Action for annulment and damages)
   2011/C 30/120
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Christine Taillard (Thionville, France) (represented by: N. Cambonie and C. Lelièvre, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: K. Zejdová and S. Seyr, Agents)

      Re:

   First, an action for annulment of the decision by which the European Parliament declares a medical certificate attesting to the applicant’s incapacity to work inadmissible and the resultant decision to withdraw annual leave. Second, a claim for compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the Decision of the European Parliament of 15 January 2009, by which the Parliament refused to accept the medical certificate of 5 January 2009 and the resultant decision to deduct Ms Taillard’s absence of 6 to 9 January2009 from her annual leave;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Ms Taillard.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010, p. 81.


title: Case T-36/15: Action brought on 23 January 2015  — Hispasat v Commission

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/40

         Action brought on 23 January 2015 — Hispasat v Commission
   (Case T-36/15)
   (2015/C 089/48)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Hispasat, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and A. Balcells Cartagena, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision, in particular Article 1 thereof, insofar as it finds the existence of State aid granted to HISPASAT incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               consequently, annul the orders for the recovery of that aid set out in Articles 3 and 4 of the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that by designating HISPASAT SA as a direct beneficiary of the contested measure, the Commission made a manifest error of fact which must result in the annulment of the decision, since that company did not take part in the measures and has derived no benefit from them. The principle of good administration was also infringed insofar as the European Commission identified HISPASAT SA as the beneficiary of the measures after the investigation was commenced without analysing the factual situation that arose and without permitting the applicant to be heard during the administrative procedure.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the Commission infringed Articles 106 and 107 TFEU and Protocol 26 TFEU since the measures disputed by the decision do not constitute State aid as there is no economic activity; at issue, rather, is the activity of public authorities in their capacity as administrations. Still more subsidiarily, the applicant submits that the contested decision incorrectly concludes that the measures at issue were not related to the provision of a public service of general interest (PSGI) and, consequently, incorrectly assesses the applicability of the Altmark case-law and that of Decision PSGI 2005/842/EEC (on the application of 86(2) EC), which could have led to a finding of the absence of aid or of the compatibility of any aid found to have been granted.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the disputed measures are not likely to distort competition or trade between Member States.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision manifestly errs in its assessment of the compatibility of the aid under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU: (i) by holding the principle of technological neutrality as an absolute principle; (ii) by holding that the measures at issue infringed technological neutrality despite the conclusions to the contrary set out in the technical reports provided by the regional government, by the Spanish central authorities and by a private operator; (iii) by concluding that the measures at issue were not appropriate or proportionate; and (iv) by stating that the measure creates unnecessary distortions of competition.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the decision infringes Regulation No 659/1999 insofar as it errs in its assessment of existing aid under Article 1(b)(v).


15.6.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 144/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Removal from the register of Case C-233/99 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/50)
—     Incorrect legal basis and lack of competence of the
      Commission: The contested regulation has as its legal
      basis Article 45(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98
      for the conservation of fishery resources through techni-
                                                                        By order of 21 March 2002 the President of the Court of
      cal measures for the protection of juveniles of marine
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
      organisms. That provision confers on the Commission
                                                                        from the register of Case C-233/99 (Reference for a preliminary
      limited legislative power which that institution may use
                                                                        ruling by Københavns Byret): Anklagemyndigheden (Public
      only in such cases and under such conditions as provided
                                                                        Prosecution Department) v Tonny Haugsted Hansen.
      in that provision, whilst general power to legislate in the
      matter of fisheries resides with the Council in accordance
      with the procedure laid down in Article 37 EC. In the
      present case, the Commission refers to a report of                (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
      November 2000 by the International Council for the
      Exploration of the Sea and to Regulation No 1162/2001
      (which, in the Commission’s own words ‘cannot produce
      any effect whatsoever’ — see OJ L 47 of 19.2.2002,
      p. 21). No other data are produced to substantiate the
      statement made on 19 March that conservation of hake
      resources in the ICES areas affected required immediate
      action by the Commission.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-369/99 (1)
—     Breach of the principle of non-discrimination:
                                                                                (2002/C 144/51)
—     Lack of a statement of reasons
                                                                        By order of 19 March 2002 the President of the Court of
The main arguments put forward in support of the last two
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
pleas are similar to those in Case C-304/01 (2).
                                                                        from the register of Case C-369/99: Kingdom of Spain v
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ L 77, p. 8 of 20.3.2002.
(2) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001, p. 15.                                      (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
        Removal from the register of Case C-61/99 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case C-407/99 (1)
                          (2002/C 144/49)                                                        (2002/C 144/52)
By order of 8 February 2002 the President of the Court of               By order of 11 December 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-61/99 (Referral for a preliminary           from the register of Case C-407/99 (Referral for a preliminary
ruling by the Landgericht Mainz): Deutsche Post AG v Landal             ruling by the Bundessozialgericht): Vetharanigam Pathminidevi
Green Parks GmbH.                                                       v Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank.
(1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.                                               (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.


title: Case T-58/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 April 2009 — HALTE v Commission (State aid — Complaint — Action for failure to act — Definition of Commission’s position terminating the failure to act — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/38

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 April 2009 — HALTE v Commission
   (Case T-58/06) (1)

   (State aid - Complaint - Action for failure to act - Definition of Commission’s position terminating the failure to act - No need to adjudicate)
   2009/C 153/74
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Honorable Association de Logisticiens et de Transporteurs Européens (HALTE) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: J.-L. Lesquins, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito and E. Righini, Agents.)

      Re:

   Action seeking a declaration, under Article 232 EC, that by refraining from initiating the formal investigation procedure under Article 88 EC and from adopting protective measures in relation to the aid allegedly granted in the context of the sale of SERNAM SA, the Commission failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The Honorable Association de Logisticiens et de Transporteurs Européens (HALTE) and the Commission shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Case C-342/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht Korneuburg by order of 1 September 1999 in the case of NEW YORKER S.H.K Jeans GmbH v SIMPEX-1000ST

text:
4.12.1999            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 352/23
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht               3. Order the Commission to pay default interest in respect of
Korneuburg by order of 1 September 1999 in the case of                    the full amount blocked by the contested decision with
   NEW YORKER S.H.K Jeans GmbH v SIMPEX-1000ST                            effect from 16 August 1999, or earlier in the case of an
                                                                          admissible application, until the date on which the judg-
                                                                          ment of the Court is complied with;
                       (Case C-342/99)
                       (1999/C 352/35)                                4. Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 1 September 1999 from
the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Regional Court, Korneuburg)
(Republic of Austria), which was received at the Court Registry
on 14 September 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of         Pleas in law and main arguments
NEW YORKER S.H.K. Jeans GmbH v SIMPEX-1000ST on the
following question:
                                                                      — Lack of competence: the contested decision was not
On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council                 adopted by the Commission in compliance with the
Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying                     principle of collective responsibility. Nor is it clear that
down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,               the contested decision was adopted on behalf of the
export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of                  Commission. No decision on the basis of which the head
counterfeit and pirated goods (Official Journal of the European           of division in question was empowered to take such a
Communities No L 341 of 30.12.1994) also applicable to                    decision was ever published and the Netherlands Govern-
situations in which goods of the type specified therein are, in           ment is not otherwise aware of any decision whereby the
the course of transit between two States not belonging to                 head of division in question was authorised to decide to
the European Community, temporarily detained by customs                   suspend payment of the first advance. The person who
authorities in a Member State on the basis of that regulation,            signed the contested decision was therefore not authorised
at the request of a holder of rights who claims that his rights           to take that decision.
have been infringed and whose undertaking has its registered
office in a Member State of the European Community?
                                                                          Even were the Commission to establish that F.H. was
                                                                          authorised and if it could be assumed that the contested
                                                                          decision was based on this authorisation, the contested
                                                                          decision goes beyond the limits which the case-law imposes
                                                                          on authorisation. The contested decision cannot be regard-
                                                                          ed as being a managerial and administrative measure which
                                                                          it is necessary should be adopted in order to ensure the
                                                                          proper functioning of both the Commission and its services
                                                                          at administrative level.
Action brought on 16 September 1999 by the Kingdom of
the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                        Communities
                                                                      — Breach of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of
                       (Case C-343/99)                                    19 December 1988 laying down provisions for
                                                                          implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards
                                                                          coordination of the activities of the different Structural
                       (1999/C 352/36)                                    Funds between themselves and with the operations of the
                                                                          European Investment Bank and the other existing financial
                                                                          instruments (1):
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 16 September 1999 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra and Jantine van                 — Breach of Article 21 of Regulation No 4253/88: when
Bakel, Assistant Legal Advisers in the Ministry of Foreign                     taking a decision on the amount to be paid as an
Affairs, The Hague, acting as Agents.                                          advance, the Commission has only those powers which
                                                                               relate to the assessment of whether the application is
                                                                               admissible. In particular, a power to order suspension
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    such as that in the contested decision cannot be derived
                                                                               from Article 24 of Regulation No 4253/88. The auth-
                                                                               orisation provided for under Article 24 of Regulation
1. Declare that the application is admissible;                                 No 4253/88 relates to specific operations and does not
                                                                               provide for the possibility of suspending payment of
2. Annul the Commission decision notified to the Nether-                       the first advance in respect of all operations or
     lands Government by letter of 16 July 1999;                               measures to be implemented in a Member State.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 January 2003 in Case T-138/01: F v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Officials — Reassignment — Legitimate expectations — Action for annulment and compensation)

text:
C 83/20                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          5.4.2003
1.     Annuls the Commission’s decision of 25 November 1999                   Action brought on 10 January 2003 by Colette Di Marzio
       refusing to award an orphan’s pension to the applicant’s child;            against Commission of the European Communities
2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs, except those incurred
       by the Council of the European Union and those incurred by
                                                                                (Case T-14/03)
       the applicant as a consequence of the Council’s intervention;
3.     Orders the Council to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 83/47)
( 1) OJ C 335, 25 November 2000.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 10 January 2003 by Colette Di
                          of 28 January 2003                                  Marzio, residing in Ginasservis (France), represented by Geor-
                                                                              ges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
in Case T-138/01: F v Court of Auditors of the European
                            Communities (1)
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
(Officials — Reassignment — Legitimate expectations —
             Action for annulment and compensation)
                                                                              —    annul the appointing authority’s decision to make a
                             (2003/C 83/46)                                        deduction from the applicant’s salary corresponding, for
                                                                                the months of October, November and December 2001,
                                                                                to the weighting for France and the expatriation allow-
                     (Language of the case: French)                                ance;
                                                                              —    annul the decision of an unknown date depriving the
In Case T-138/01: F, an official of the Court of Auditors of the                   applicant of the fixed allowance (the ‘secretarial allow-
European Communities, residing in Luxembourg, represented                          ance’) referred to in Article 4a of Annex VII to the Staff
by P. Goergen, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-                       Regulations with effect from October 2000;
bourg, against Court of Auditors of the European Communities
(Agents: J.-M. Stenier, P. Giusta and B. Schäfer) — application,
firstly, for annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors               —    annul the decision of an unknown date depriving the
of 4 December 2000 reassigning the applicant to the trans-                         applicant of the annual travel allowance provided for in
lation service and, secondly, for compensation for the non-                        Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations for 2001;
material damage alleged by the applicant, the Court (Second
Chamber), composed of R.M. Moura Ramos, President, and
J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator,               —    reinstate all the applicant’s pecuniary rights, which entails
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 January 2003,                        payment of the weighting for France and the expatriation
in which it:                                                                       allowance for October, November and December 2001;
                                                                                payment of the fixed allowance (the ‘secretarial allow-
1.     Annuls the decision of the Court of Auditors of 4 December                  ance’) referred to in Article 4a of Annex VII to the Staff
       2000 reassigning the applicant to the translation service.                  Regulations for the period from 1 January 2001; payment
                                                                                of the annual travel allowance provided for in Article 8
                                                                                of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations for the whole of
2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application.
                                                                                2001; plus interest on all those amounts at the rate of
                                                                                5,25 % per annum until full payment is made;
3.     Orders the Court of Auditors to pay the costs, including those
       relating to the interlocutory proceedings in Case T-138/01 R.
                                                                              —    order the defendant to pay damages assessed, on an
                                                                                equitable basis, at EUR 10 000;
( 1) OJ C 259 of 15.9.2001.
                                                                              —    order the defendant to pay all the costs.


title: Action brought on 4 September 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-327/98)

text:
C 327/12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.10.98
Supplementary to the first three questions:                          Action brought on 4 September 1998 by the Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities against the French Republic
4. Is a contracting entity which falls within the scope                                       (Case C-327/98)
     ratione personae of Directive 93/38/EEC obliged,                                          (98/C 327/18)
     where a contract concluded by it contains elements of
     a service contract within the meaning of Article 1(4)(a)
     of Directive 93/38/EEC together with elements of a
     different contractual nature which are not within the           An action against the French Republic was brought before
     scope of that directive, to sever the part of the overall       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     contract which is subject to Directive 93/38/EEC, in so         4 September 1998 by the Commission of the European
     far as that is technically possible and economically            Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,
     reasonable, and make that part the subject of a                 Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a
     procurement procedure under Article 1(7) of that                national civil servant on secondment to its legal Service,
     directive, as the Court of Justice held in Case C-3/            acting as Agents, with an address for service in
     88 (3) before the entry into force of Directive 92/50/          Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
     EEC with respect to a contract which was not subject            Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
     as a whole to Council Directive 77/62/EEC (4)?
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
If that question is answered in the affirmative,
                                                                     Ð declare that, by failing within the prescribed time-limit
5. Is the contractual concession of the exclusive right                  to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
     to operate a service for financial gain, which will                 measures necessary in order to comply with Articles 9,
     give the service provider an income which cannot                    10, 11, 12 and 14 of Council Directive 93/15/EEC of
     be determined but which in the light of general                     5 April 1993 on the harmonization of the provisions
     experience will not be inconsiderable and may be                    relating to the placing on the market and supervision
     expected to exceed the costs of providing the service,              of explosives for civil uses (1), the French Republic has
     to be regarded as payment for the provision of the                  failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
     service, as the Court of Justice held in Case C-272/
     91 (5) in connection with a supply contract and a right
     ceded by the public authorities in lieu of payment?             Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Supplementary to the above questions:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
6. Are the provisions of Article 1(4)(a) and (c) of
     Directive 93/38/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that           Under Article 19(1) of Directive 93/15/EEC, Member
     a contract which provides for the provision of services         States are required to bring into force the provisions
     within the meaning of Annex XVI A, category 15,                 necessary to comply with Articles 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14
     loses the nature of a service contract and becomes a            of that directive before 30 September 1993.
     supply contract if the result of the service is the
     production of a large number of identical tangible
     objects which have an economic value and thus                   The Commission has received no communication from
     constitute goods within the meaning of Articles 9 and           the French authorities regarding the adoption of the
     30 of the EC Treaty?                                            provisions referred to above.
                                                                     (1) OJ L 121, 15.5.1993, p. 20.
If that question is answered in the affirmative,
7. Is the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-3/88
     to be interpreted as meaning that such a supply
     contract is to be severed from the other components
     of the service contract and made the subject of a
     procurement procedure under Article 1(7) of Directive           Action brought on 4 September 1998 by the Commission
     93/38/EEC, in so far as this is technically possible and        of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
     economically reasonable?                                                                     Belgium
                                                                                (Case C-328/98)
(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 84.                                                                 (98/C 327/19)
(3) [1989] ECR 4035.
(4) OJ L 13, 15.1.1977, p. 1.
(5) [1992] ECR I-3929.                                               An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                     on 4 September 1998 by the Commission of the European


title: Case T-151/10: Order of the General Court of 22 October 2010 — Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten v Commission

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/58

         Order of the General Court of 22 October 2010 — Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten v Commission
   (Case T-151/10) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 346/115
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case T-22/01: Action brought on 26 January 2001 by Petros Efthymiou against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 79/26                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.3.2001
       —    24 000 000 euro for loss of the chance of being               The applicant claims that the Court should:
            awarded the contract in issue;
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 11 Janu-
       —    63 000 euro for the expenses and ancillary costs                    ary 2001 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary
            agreed to in the context of participation in the                    measure of downgrading from A 5 to A 6, on the same
            restricted invitation to tender;                                    step, as provided for in Article 86(2)(e) of the Staff
                                                                                Regulations;
       —    2 000 000 euro for the non-material damage suf-
            fered by the applicant;                                       —     order the Commission to compensate him for material
                                                                                and non-material damage, provisionally assessed, with all
—      order the defendant to pay all the costs.                                manner of reservations, at EUR 1 350 000;
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in the present case, the subject-matter of which
is the same as in Case T-205/00 Renco v Council (1), seeks full
compensation for the damage suffered by it as a result of the             The applicant contests the disciplinary measure imposed on
irregularities established in the award of a public contract for          him following alleged irregularities committed in the course of
general installation and maintenance works to be carried out              his duties as Head of the Delegation of the European Com-
in the buildings of the Council following the issue of invitation         mission in Bratislava (Slovak Republic).
to tender No 99/S 146-107865/FR of 30 July 1999.
                                                                          In support of his claims, he puts forward the following pleas
It is alleged that the Council has incurred liability on account          in law:
of, in particular, its failure to comply with the requirements
imposed by Directive 93/37/EEC (2), which applies to the                  —     Breach of the rights of the defence and of the disciplinary
contract in issue. The applicant also complains that the Council                procedure.
disappointed the legitimate expectations of the tenderers
concerning the selection criteria actually applied in the                 —     Lack of a statement of reasons and erroneous statement
decision-making process.                                                        of reasons.
(1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000, p. 19.                                         —     Manifest error of assessment of the facts giving rise to a
(2) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the                  misassessment of law.
    coordination of procedures for the award of public works
    contracts.                                                            —     Breach of the principle of proportionality.
Action brought on 26 January 2001 by Georgios S. Zavvos                   Action brought on 26 January 2001 by Petros Efthymiou
     against Commission of the European Communities                           against Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-21/01)                                                          (Case T-22/01)
                          (2001/C 79/46)                                                          (2001/C 79/47)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                          (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 January 2001 by Georgios                       European Communities on 26 January 2001 by Petros Efthy-
S. Zavvos, residing in Linkebeek (Belgium), represented by                miou, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noël Louis
Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, Avocats, with an                     and Véronique Peere, avocats, with an address for service in
address for service in Luxembourg.                                        Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.3.2001            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 79/27
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           Pleas in law and main arguments
—    annul the decisions of the Commission concerning                 The applicant contests the decision of the Commission to
     ‘supplementary amendments’ in respect of mission                 recover part of the amount which was paid to him by way of
     expenses incurred by the applicant from 5 to 11 and              mission expenses incurred during September and November
     from 12 to 18 September 1999 and from 8 to 11 Novem-             1999. In support of his application, the applicant puts forward
     ber 1999;                                                        the following pleas in law:
—    annul the decision to charge to the applicant overcharges        —     failure to fulfil the obligation to give reasons;
     amounting to EUR 239,08, EUR 254,7 and EUR 90,05;
                                                                      —     infringement of Article 11(1) and 12(2) of Annex VII of
—    order the Commission to repay to the applicant those                   the Staff Regulations;
     amounts together with default interest calculated at 6 %
     per annum as from 26 June 2000;                                  —     manifest error of assessment; and
—    order the defendant to pay the costs.                            —     invalidity of the 1999 Missions Guide.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 1998 in Case C-323/97: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections)

text:
C 299/2              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26.9.98
(a) the judges of the small Chamber to which four judges            Sixth Chamber
    are attached, in order of seniority;
                                                                    (President: Mr Kapteyn)
(b) the judges of the other small Chamber, in the same              Judge Murray, Judge Ragnemalm, Judge Ioannou, Judge
    order.                                                          Mancini, Judge Hirsch and Judge Schintgen
                                                                    Appointment of the First Advocate General
For each case, the large Chamber shall be composed of:
                                                                    In accordance with Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure
Ð the President,                                                    the Court of Justice appointed Advocate General P. LeÂger
                                                                    as First Advocate General for a period of one year starting
                                                                    on 7 October 1998.
Ð the Judge-Rapporteur,
Ð three judges appointed in order from the list; the
    starting point on that list shall be moved down one
    name at each general meeting.                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
Any judges prevented from sitting shall be replaced in                                      of 9 July 1998
order from the list. However, should the President of the
large Chamber be prevented from sitting, he must be                 in    Case   C-323/97: Commission of the European
replaced if possible by the President of the small Chamber.                    Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                                                                    (Right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal
                                                                                elections)
If the Court, or a Chamber, deems it appropriate to hear
                                                                                (98/C 299/02)
and determine two or more cases together (whether or not
they are formally joined), the composition of the bench
shall be that determined for the first of the cases discussed                       (Language of the case: French)
at a general meeting.
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
4. For the period ending on 6 October 1999 the lists                          published in the European Court Reports)
referred to above are as follows:
                                                                    In Case C-323/97: Commission of the European
First Chamber                                                       Communities (Agent: Pieter van Nuffel) v. Kingdom of
                                                                    Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder) Ð application for a
                                                                    declaration that, by failing to bring into force within the
(President: Mr Jann)                                                prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                    provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 94/
Judge Edward, Judge Sevón and Judge Wathelet                        80/EC of 19 December 1994 laying down detailed
                                                                    arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and to
                                                                    stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of
                                                                    the European Union residing in a Member State of which
Fourth Chamber
                                                                    they are not nationals (2), the Kingdom of Belgium has
                                                                    failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive Ð the
(President: Mr Kapteyn)                                             Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,
                                                                    President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F. Mancini,
                                                                    P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), and G. Hirsch, Judges; G.
Judge Murray, Judge Ragnemalm and Judge Ioannou
                                                                    Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
                                                                    a judgment on 9 July 1998 in which it:
Fifth Chamber
                                                                    1. declares that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                         prescribed period the laws, regulations and
(President: Mr Puissochet)
                                                                         administrative provisions necessary to comply with l
                                                                         Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994 laying down
Judge Edward, Judge Jann, Judge Sevón, Judge Wathelet,                   detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to
Judge Moitinho de Almeida and Judge Gulmann                              vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections
 ---pagebreak--- 26.9.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 299/3
     by citizens of the European Union residing in a                 2. consideration of the questions submitted has not
     Member State of which they are not nationals, the                    disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the
     Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations              validity of Regulation (EC) No 3093/94.
     under the first paragraph of Article 14 of that
     Directive;
                                                                     (1) OJ C 268, 14.10.1995.
                                                                     (2) OJ L 333, 22.12.1994, p. 1.
2. orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
(2) OJ L 368, 31.12.1994. p. 38.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 14 July 1998
                                                                     in Case C-341/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Pretura Circondariale di Avezzano (Italy)): Gianni
                                                                                Bettati v. Safety Hi-Tech Srl (1)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 14 July 1998                               (Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 Ð Measures to protect the
                                                                                ozone layer Ð Restrictions on the use of
in Case C-284/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  hydrochlorofluorocarbons and halons Ð Validity)
the Giudice di Pace di Genova (Italy)): Safety Hi-Tech Srl
                       v. S. & T. Srl (1)                                                     (98/C 299/04)
(Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 Ð Measures to protect the
           ozone layer Ð Restrictions on the use of
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
      hydrochlorofluorocarbons and halons Ð Validity)
                         (98/C 299/03)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                (Language of the case: Italian)                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-341/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di
          published in the European Court Reports)                   Avezzano (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                     proceedings pending before that court betrween Gianni
                                                                     Bettati and Safety Hi-Tech Srl Ð on the validity of
                                                                     Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 of
In Case C-284/95: reference to the Court under Article 177           15 December 1994 on substances that deplete the ozone
of the EC Treaty from the Giudice di Pace di Genova                  layer (2) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending          Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm and M.
before that court between Safety Hi-Tech Srl and S. & T.             Wathelet, Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C.
Srl Ð on the interpretation and validity of Council                  Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, D. A. O. Edward,
Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 of 15 December 1994 on                    P. Jann, L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou (Rapporteur),
substances that deplete the ozone layer (2) Ð the Court,             Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.                 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Presidents of                 14 July 1998 in which it ruled:
Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
P. J. G. Kapteyn, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, L. Sevón and
K. M. Ioannou (Rapporteur), Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate
General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the                consideration of the question submitted has not disclosed
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 July 1998 in which             any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of
it ruled:                                                            Council Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 of 15 December
                                                                     1994 on substances that deplete the ozone layer.
1. Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 of                (1) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995.
     15 December 1994 on substances that deplete the                 (2) OJ L 333, 22.12.1994, p. 1.
     ozone layer must be interpreted as prohibiting entirely
     the use and, consequently, the marketing of
     hydrochlorofluorocarbons for firefighting;


title: Case C-75/01: Action brought on 14 February 2001 by Commission of the European Communities against Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 118/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.4.2001
      (a)  to refer to physiological or pharmacological effects,         Pleas in law and main arguments
           in particular those which preserve youthfulness,
           inhibit signs of ageing, promote slimming or main-
           tain health, or to create the impression of any such          The Commission takes the view that the Grand Duchy of
           effect;                                                       Luxembourg has not adopted the necessary measures to
                                                                         implement the provisions set out in its application and that
                                                                         the existing provisions relied on do not constitute full and
      (b) to refer to case-histories, recommendations made by
                                                                         correct transposition.
           doctors or medical experts’ reports;
      (c)  to use health-related, pictorial or stylised represen-
                                                                         (1) OJ 1992 L 206, p. 2.
           tations of organs of the human body, pictures
           of members of the health-care professions or of
           sanatoria or other pictures or illustrations referring
           to health-care activities?
2.    Do Directive 79/112/EEC or Articles 28 and 30 EC
      preclude a national provision which, on the marketing of
      foodstuffs, permits health-related information such as
      that described in Question 1 to be affixed thereto
      only after prior authorisation by the competent federal
      minister, whereby a condition of authorisation is that the         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Central
      health-related information be consistent with protecting           Administrativo, 2a Secção by judgment of that court of
      the consumer from being misled?                                    19 December 2000 in the case of EDM — Empresa de
                                                                           Desenvolvimento Mineiro, SA, against Fazenda Pública
                                                                                (Case C-77/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/23)
Action brought on 14 February 2001 by Commission of                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the European Communities against Grand Duchy of                          European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal Central
                           Luxembourg                                    Administrativo, 2a Secção (Second Chamber of the Central
                                                                         Administrative Court) of 19 December 2000, which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 15 February 2001, for a
                          (Case C-75/01)                                 preliminary ruling in the case of EDM — Empresa de
                                                                         Desenvolvimento Mineiro, SA, against Fazenda Pública on the
                         (2001/C 118/22)                                 following questions:
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             Question 1
ties on 14 February 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by R.B. Wainwright and J. Adda,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.             Does the granting of annually repaid loans by a holding
                                                                         company to its partners constitute ‘economic activity’, within
                                                                         the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Sixth Directive (1), where
The applicant claims that the Court should                               that company’s principle activity is to manage those partners
                                                                         and, to a certain extent, also guarantee the loans contracted by
—     Declare that, by failing to bring into force all the measures      them?
      necessary to implement fully and correctly Articles 1,
      4(5), 5(4), 6, 7, 12(1)(b) and (c), 12(2), 12(4), 13(1)(b)
      and 13(2), 14, 15, 16(1), 22(b) and (c), and 23(2) in
                                                                         Question 2
      conjunction with annexes I, II, IV, V and VI, of Council
      Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
      of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), the           Likewise: the performance of operations, in the context of a
      Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its                 consortium as in the present case, by a company which is both
      obligations under that directive and the third paragraph           a member and the administrator of the consortium, particularly
      of Article 249 of the EC Treaty; and                               where they exceed its share as stipulated in the contract, in
                                                                         return for payment in consideration of its value by the other
—     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.              members of the consortium?


title: Case C-13/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13B(a) — Insurance transactions — Body providing road assistance services)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/18

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-13/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13B(a) - Insurance transactions - Body providing road assistance services)
   (2006/C 331/30)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Agent)

      Defendants: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos and K. Boskovits, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 13B(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption of insurance transactions — Roadside assistance body not falling within the insurance directives but engaging in insurance activities for the purposes of Article 13B(a)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by levying value added tax on services consisting in road assistance in the event of a breakdown, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.