title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, by order of that court of 2 July 1997, in the case of Uwe Clees against Hauptzollamt Wuppertal (Case C-259/97)

text:
27 . 9 . 97               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 295/ 13
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht                      the basis for enforcement and if it can constitute the
Diisseldorf, by order of that court of 2 July 1997, in the                     basis for enforcement under the law of the State in
      case of Uwe Clees against Hauptzollamt Wuppertal                         which it was drawn up, albeit subject to the condition
                           ( Case C-259/97 )                                   that the court with jurisdiction to enforce it may
                                                                               refuse the creditor's application for enforcement if, as
                              ( 97/C 295/ 19 )                                 a result of objections to the basis for enforcement,
                                                                               there    are   doubts      as  to   whether  enforcement
                                                                               proceedings should be continued ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht                             If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative :
( Finance Court) Diisseldorf of 2 July 1997, received at the
Court Registry on 18 July 1997, for a preliminary ruling                   2 . Can an application for recognition of a decision or
in the case of Uwe Clees v. Hauptzollamt Wuppertal on
                                                                               authentic instrument submitted to a court having local
the following question:                                                        jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 32 ( 2 ) of the
                                                                               Brussels    Convention      be  rendered inadmissible   or
                                                                               unfounded by reason of the fact that, while appeal
Is Heading No 9705 of the combined nomenclature of                             proceedings ( Article 36 of the Brussels Convention )
Regulation (EEC ) No 2658/87 (*) in the version of Annex I                     are pending, the debtor has left the State in which the
thereto, as amended by Regulation ( EEC ) No 2472/90 ( 2 ),                    proceedings were instituted and his new place of
to be interpreted as meaning that as a rule motor vehicles                     residence is unknown ?
as collectors' pieces of historical interest:
      are required merely to be in their original state —
      without substantial changes to the chassis, steering or
       braking system, engine, etc .,
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeidshof,
                                                                           Antwerp by judgment of that court of 11 July 1997 in the
       at least 30 years old, and                                          case of Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen against Robert
                                                                                Engelbrecht
                                                                                ( Case C-262/97 )
— of a model or type which is no longer in production ?
                                                                                ( 97/C 295/21 )
(') OJ L 256 , 7 . 9 . 1987, p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ L 247, 10 . 9 . 1990 , p . 1 .                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by judgment of the Arbeidshof
                                                                           ( Higher Labour Court ), Antwerp, of 11 July 1997,
                                                                           received at the Court Registry on 21 July 1997, for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of Rijksdienst voor
                                                                           Pensioenen against Robert Engelbrecht on the following
                                                                           questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundes
gerichtshof by order of that court of 26 June 1997 in the                  1.   Is the view that a national court which concludes that
          case of Unibank A/S v. Fleming G. Christensen
                                                                                an applicable national provision requiring a migrant
                            ( Case C-260/97 )                                   worker's pension to be reduced ( such as Article 3 ( 1 )
                                                                                and Article 3 ( 8 ) of the Belgian Law of 20 July 1990
                               ( 97/C 295/20 )
                                                                                requiring the amount of the pension received by a
                                                                                migrant worker's spouse to be deducted from that
                                                                                worker's household pension, on the ground that the
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         spouse's pension is a benefit equivalent to a pension)
 European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof                         and considers that it is impossible to interpret that
 ( Federal Court of Justice ) of 26 June 1997, which was                        national rule in such a way as to eliminate the
 received at the Court Registry on 18 July 1997, for a                          unexpected adverse effects of the lack of coordination
 preliminary ruling in the case of Unibank A/S v. Fleming                       between social security schemes in the interests of free
 G. Christensen on the following questions :                                    movement of workers or holds that the application of
                                                                                that rule in the case in point constitutes an obstacle to
                                                                                free movement of workers, may not disapply the
 1 . Is a promissory note signed by a debtor without the                        relevant Belgian legislation, compatible with
       involvement of a public official —               such as the             Community law, in particular Articles 5 , 48 and 51
       gceldsbrev under Danish law ( Paragraph         478 ( 1 ) ( 5 ) of       of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing
       the Danish Law on the Administration            of Justice ) —           the European Economic Community and, more
       an authentic instrument within the                meaning of             specifically, the principles of free movement of
       Article   50     of the Brussels        Convention,    if that           workers and cooperation in good faith between the
       promissory note expressly specifies that it can serve as                 competent authorities ?


title: Action brought on 20 January 1999 by KE KELIT Kunststoffwerk mbH against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-17/99)

text:
C 86/28               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                27.3.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    Instance of the European Communities on 20 January
                                                                       1999 by KE KELIT Kunststoffwerk mbH, Linz (Austria),
The applicant was fined ECU 1 500 000 by the                           represented by the firm of Grassner, Lenz, Thewanger and
Commission for participating in a cartel between                       Partners, Rechtsanwälte, Linz, with an address for service
manufacturers and distributors of district heating pipes (1).          in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Loesch and
                                                                       Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
The applicant pleads:
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð infringement of the right to a proper hearing;
Ð infringement of the duty to state reasons under                      1. annul Commission Decision C(1998) 3117 final of
     Article 190 of the EC Treaty;                                          21 October 1998 concerning a proceeding under
                                                                            Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/35.691/E-4, Fern-
                                                                            wärmetechnik-Kartell), as amended by Commission
Ð infringement of the principles of non-retroactivity and                   Decision C(1998) 3415 final of 6 November 1998, in
     the protection of legitimate expectations, and of the                  so far as it concerns the applicant;
     duty of the administration to act in accordance with
     statute;
                                                                            or, in the alternative,
Ð abuse of discretion in applying the guidelines on
     fines (2);
                                                                       2. annul the fine imposed on the applicant;
Ð abuse of discretion and discrimination in applying the
     rules whereby undertakings cooperating with the
     Commission during its investigation into a cartel may                  or, in the alternative,
     be exempted from fines (3);
                                                                       3. reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;
Ð misapplication of heading D of the above rules;
Ð infringement of the principles of equal treatment and                4. order the Commission to pay the costs in any event.
     proportionality, and of the prohibition of arbitrary
     action;
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð inaccuracy of the facts alleged;
                                                                       The applicant was fined ECU 360 000 by the Commission
Ð incorrect assessment of the turnover figures relevant to
                                                                       for participating in a cartel between manufacturers and
     determining the amount of the fine;
                                                                       distributors of district heating pipes. (1)
Ð fixing of an excessive interest rate; and
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are essentially the
Ð erroneous legal assessment.                                          same as in Cases T-9/99 and T-16/99.
(1) See Case T-9/99.                                                   (1) See Case T-9/99.
(2) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
    Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the
    ECSC Treaty (OJ C 9, 14.1.1998, p. 3).
                                                                       Action brought on 21 January 1999 by Cordis Obst- und
                                                                       Gemüsegrosshandel GmbH against the Commission of the
Action brought on 20 January 1999 by KE KELIT Kunst-                                        European Communities
stoffwerk mbH against Commission of the European
                         Communities                                                            (Case T-18/99)
                        (Case T-17/99)                                                          (1999/C 86/50)
                        (1999/C 86/49)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European                       An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-449/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) by order of that court dated 11 May 2001, in the case of Abbey Life Assurance Company Ltd against Kok Theam Yeap

text:
C 84/38                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      6.4.2002
3.   If Question 2 is answered affirmatively:                                  an unlawful decision in review proceedings under
                                                                               Article 1 of Directive 89/665/EEC dependent on proof
     Does the Court of Justice have available to it on the                     that the unlawful decision was material to the outcome
     basis of the reference for a preliminary ruling all the                   of the procurement procedure, where that proof has to
     information needed in order to be able itself to assess                   be achieved by the review body examining whether the
     whether the government body as mentioned in the facts                     ranking of the tenders actually submitted would have
     as set out caused specific injury to the defendant or will                been different had they been re-evaluated disregarding
     it leave the reply to that question to the referring Austrian             the unlawful award criterion?
     court?
                                                                         4.    Do the provisions of Community law relating to the
                                                                               award of public contracts, in particular Article 26 of
                                                                               Directive 93/36/EEC, require the contracting authority to
                                                                               cancel the invitation to tender if it transpires in review
                                                                               proceedings under Article 1 of Directive 89/665/EEC that
                                                                               one of the award criteria it laid down is unlawful?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverga-                 (1) OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1.
beamt (Austria) by order of that tribunal of 13 November                 (2) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
2001 in the case of (1) EVN AG and (2) Wienstrom GmbH
                     v Republic of Austria
                         (Case C-448/01)
                          (2002/C 84/65)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
                                                                         (England and Wales) (Civil Division) by order of that
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         court dated 11 May 2001, in the case of Abbey Life
European Communities by an order of the Bundesvergabeamt
                                                                              Assurance Company Ltd against Kok Theam Yeap
(Federal Procurement Office) of 13 November 2001, which
was received at the Court Registry on 20 November 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of (1) EVN AG and (2) Wienstrom                                    (Case C-449/01)
GmbH v Republic of Austria on the following questions:
1.   Do the provisions of Community law relating to the                                            (2002/C 84/66)
     award of public contracts, in particular Article 26 of
     Directive 93/36/EEC (1), prohibit a contracting authority
     from laying down an award criterion in relation to the
     supply of electricity which is given a 45 % weighting and
     which requires a tenderer to state, without being bound             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     to a defined supply period, how much electricity he can             European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
     supply from renewable sources to a group of consumers               (England and Wales) (Civil Division) dated 11 May 2001,
     not more closely defined, where the maximum number                  which was received at the Court Registry on 21 November
     of points is given to whichever tenderer states the highest         2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Abbey Life
     amount and a supply volume is taken into account only               Assurance Company Ltd and Kok Theam Yeap on the follow-
     to the extent that it exceeds the volume of consumption             ing questions:
     to be expected in the context of the contract to which the
     invitation to tender relates?                                       1)    Can ‘policies for life assurance, annuities, health and
                                                                               pension business, unit trusts, offshore funds business,
2.   Do the provisions of Community law relating to the                        personal equity plans and other contracts offered by
     award of public contracts, in particular Article 2(1)(b) of               Abbey’ or any of them be described as ‘goods’ that fall
     Directive 89/665/EEC (2), prohibit making the setting                     within the provisions of 1993 Regulations and/or in the
     aside of an unlawful decision in review proceedings under                 Directive?
     Article 1 of Directive 89/665/EEC dependent on proof
     that the unlawful decision was material to the outcome              2)    Do ‘policies for life assurance, annuities, health and
     of the procurement procedure?                                             pension business, unit trusts, offshore funds business,
                                                                               personal equity plans and other contracts offered by
                                                                               Abbey’ or any of them have to be:
3.   Do the provisions of Community law relating to the
     award of public contracts, in particular Article 26 of
     Directive 93/36/EEC, prohibit making the setting aside of                 (i)  marketable, and/or
 ---pagebreak--- 6.4.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 84/39
       (ii) assignable                                                   Action brought on 27 November 2001 by the Com-
                                                                         mission of the European Communities against the Italian
       before they can be described a ‘goods’ that fall within the                                      Republic
       provisions of 1993 Regulations and/or in the Directive?
                                                                                (Case C-455/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/68)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof (Austria) by order of 19 October 2001 in the
case of 1. Margarete Ospelt, 2. Schlössle Weissenberg                    An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
Familienstiftung v Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des                     Court of Justice on 27 November 2001 by the Commission of
                        Landes Vorarlberg                                the European Communities, represented by Richard B. Wain-
                                                                         wright and Roberto Amorosi, acting as Agents.
                         (Case C-452/01)
                          (2002/C 84/67)                                 The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                         —     Declare that, by keeping in force legislation under which
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         products in respect of which there has not yet been full
European Communities by order of 19 October 2001 by the                        harmonisation, intended for use on merchant vessels
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court, Aus-                      flying the Italian flag, may be marketed only if a certificate
tria), which was received at the Court Registry on 22 November                 of conformity has been issued by a national body — so
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1. Margarete                     that in some cases the right to market the products is
Ospelt, 2. Schlössle Weissenberg Familienstiftung v Unabhän-                   enjoyed only by the grantee of the certificate — and by
giger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg on the following                  not recognising the validity of tests carried out in
questions:                                                                     accordance with international standards by bodies
                                                                               officially recognised in the other Member States or States
1.     Are Article 12 EC (ex Article 6 of the EC Treaty) and                   signatory to the EEA Agreement, even where the relevant
       Article 56 EC et seq. (ex Article 73b et seq. of the EC                 information is made available to the competent authority
       Treaty) to be interpreted as meaning that rules whereby                 and it is clear from the certificates that the equipment
       transactions in agricultural and forestry plots are subject             guarantees an equivalent degree of safety, the Italian
       to restrictions imposed by the administrative authorities               Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
       in the public interest of preserving, strengthening or                  Articles 28 and 30 of the Treaty;
       creating a viable farming community are also permitted
       in relation to Member States of the EEA as ‘third countries’      —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
       under Article 56(1) EC (ex Article 73b of the EC Treaty)
       having regard to the fundamental freedoms guaranteed
       by an applicable law of the European Union, in particular
       the free movement of capital?
                                                                         Pleas and principal arguments
2.     In the event that the first question is answered in the
       affirmative:
       Are Article 12 EC (ex Article 6 of the EC Treaty) and
                                                                         The slavish application — when not justified by overriding
       Article 56 EC et seq. (ex Article 73b et seq. of the EC
                                                                         requirements — to goods lawfully produced and marketed in
       Treaty) to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the
                                                                         other Member States of rules laid down for domestically
       appellant must, in the case of transfers of agricultural and
                                                                         produced goods, and in particular the refusal to take account,
       forestry plots, undergo an ‘authorisation procedure’ even
                                                                         for the purposes of issuing ‘type approval declarations’, of
       before the property right is entered in the land register,
                                                                         certificates accompanying such goods, even where they contain
       pursuant to the (Voralberg) Gesetz über den Verkehr mit
                                                                         the information needed to assess how safe they are, undoubt-
       Grundstücken (Land Transfer Law — VGVG 1993)
                                                                         edly constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a
       published in Voralberg LGBl. No 61/1993, entails an
                                                                         quantitative restriction on imports which is liable to hinder
       infringement of Community law and of one of the
                                                                         intra-Community trade.
       appellant’s fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the law
       of the European Union, which is also applicable to
       Member States of the EEA as ‘third countries’ under
       Article 56(1) EC (ex Article 73b of the EC Treaty)?               The foregoing is common ground. At issue is the measure
                                                                         adopted by the Italian State in order to adjust its domestic
                                                                         legislation to the principles laid down in Community law once


2.5.98                   EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 137/19
Action brought on 5 March 1998 by Sadam Zuccherifici                   Ð annul the decision of the appointing authority of
Divisione della Seci, Sadam Castiglionese Spa, Sadam                       8 December 1997 rejecting the applicant's complaint
Abruzzo Spa, Zuccherificio del Molise Spa and SocietaÁ                     through official channels lodged pursuant to
Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola Sfir Spa v. Council of the                 Article 9(2) of the Staff Regulations inasmuch as it
                          European Union                                   does not take account of certified professional
                           (Case T-39/98)                                  experience,
                            (98/C 137/41)
                                                                       Ð order the defendant to pay BEF 2 130 849,
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                       Ð order the defendant to pay legal interest, which the
                                                                           applicant requests to be applied at the rate of 8 % per
An action against the Council of the European Union was                    annum from 13 May 1993 until the date on which the
brought before the Court of First Instance on 5 March                      Court gives judgment in the case,
1998 by Sadam Zuccherifici Divisione della Seci, Sadam
Castiglionese Spa, Sadam Abruzzo Spa, Zuccherificio del
Molise Spa and SocietaÁ Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola                Ð order the defendant in any event to pay the entire
Sfir Spa, represented by Vincenzo Cerulli Irelli, Gualtiero                costs.
Pittalis and Giancarlo Fanzini, of the Bar of Teramo,
Bologna and Forlì Cesena, with an address for service in               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Luxembourg at the chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22,
rue Marie AdeÂlaïde.                                                   The applicant, employed on 13 May 1993 as a member of
                                                                       the temporary staff, contests the decision classifying him,
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance                  claiming that Articles 31 and 32 have been wrongly
should:                                                                applied. According to the applicant, the appointing
                                                                       authority did not take account of his overall professional
Ð annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2613/                  experience of 24 years and 1 month either on recruitment
     97 of 15 December 1997,                                           or in its decision to reject the appeal made through official
                                                                       channels. Moreover, the appointing authority did not take
                                                                       account of the university training and the specific
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       professional experience in the naval field which the
                                                                       applicant was able to offer within DG XIV.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       Secondly, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 7 of
The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                 the Staff Regulations and discriminatory treatment as
are the same as those in Case T-38/98 ANB and Others v.                between officials inasmuch as he covered for duties of a
Council (1).                                                           higher grade than his own, and worked with colleagues
                                                                       who are classified in Grade B 1, step 1.
(1) See page 18 of this Official Journal.
                                                                       Finally, the appointing authority failed in its duty to have
                                                                       regard for the interests of officials and to protect the
                                                                       legitimate expectations of the applicant by looking only to
                                                                       the interests of the service without considering those of
                                                                       the applicant.
Action brought on 5 March 1998 by Giuliano Pagliarani
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                           (Case T-40/98)
                            (98/C 137/42)
                                                                       Action brought on 9 March 1998 by the Netherlands
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             Antilles against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                                (Case T-41/98)
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 March 1998                                            (98/C 137/43)
by Giuliano Pagliarani, residing at Brussels, represented by
Mario Spandre, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierre Thielen,
21, rue de Nassau.
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Instance of the European Communities on 9 March 1998
                                                                       by the Netherlands Antilles, represented by P. V. F. Bos
Ð annul the decision of the appointing authority                       and M. M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an
     inasmuch as, on appointing him to the temporary                   address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
     staff, it classified the applicant in Grade B 3 step 3,           Loesch & Wolter, 11, rue Goethe.


title: Action brought on 6 April 1998 by Honeywell Inc. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-59/98)

text:
C 234/28             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.7.98
Foundation, established at Long Hanborough (United                 navigation calculations that the crew would otherwise
Kingdom), Irish Agri-Food Development Ltd, established             have to handle.
at Dublin, represented by Mia Declercq-Devisch and Kurt
Haegeman, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service         By the contested decision the Commission approved
in Luxembourg at the chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue               individual aid granted by the French authorities to the
Goethe, v Commission of the European Communities                   French company Sextant, acting as project manager for
(Agent: Marie-JoseÂe Jonczy) Ð application for interim             research and development of a new FMS adapted to
measures in relation to a Commission decision of                   Airbus aircraft. Sextant is a subsidiary of Thomson CSF
17 March 1998 declaring inadmissible a tender submitted            and Aerospatiale.
by the applicant in response to an invitation to tender for
a project financed under the TACIS programme (Project
FDRUS 9701, entitled: Russia: Promoting Co-operative              The applicant is of the opinion that the Commission has
Ventures by Independent Farmers') Ð the President of the           infringed Article 92(3) of the EC Treaty by making an
Court of First Instance made an order on 26 May 1998,              incorrect assessment as to the precompetitive nature of the
the operative part of which is as follows:                         project and as to the incentive effect of the aid. Contrary
                                                                   to what the Commission asserts, the applicant believes
                                                                   that the aid should not have been approved under the
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.              Framework.
                                                                   The applicant further contends that, because of the
2. The decision as to costs is reserved.
                                                                   complexity of the market, the Commission should have
                                                                   opened the procedure under Article 93(2) of the EC
                                                                   Treaty. By failing to do so, the Commission has infringed
                                                                   essential procedural requirements and has thus deprived
                                                                   the applicant of the opportunity to submit its comments
                                                                   on the proposed aid. If a procedure under Article 93(2)
                                                                   had been opened, the applicant would have submitted its
Action brought on 6 April 1998 by Honeywell Inc. against
                                                                   observations. The applicant argues that the Commission
      the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                   would not have concluded that the aid was compatible
                       (Case T-59/98)                              with the Treaty if it had been duly informed of all the
                                                                   pertinent facts and implications through an Article 93(2)
                        (98/C 234/56)
                                                                   procedure.
              (Language of the case: English)                      Finally, the applicant submits that Article 190 of the EC
                                                                   Treaty has been infringed in that the Commission gave
                                                                   insufficient reasons for the contested decision.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 6 April 1998
by Honeywell Inc., represented by Bernard van de Walle
de Ghelcke, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Offices of Loesch & Wolter, 11, rue Goethe.
                                                                   Action brought on 21 April 1998 by Van Den Bergh
                                                                   Foods Limited against the Commission of the European
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                 Communities
                                                                                (Case T-65/98)
Ð annul Decision No. N584/97 of the Commission                                             (98/C 234/57)
    concerning aid to Sextant Avionique for the
    development of a new flight management system                                 (Language of the case: English)
    adapted to Airbus aircraft, communicated to the
    applicant by letter D/50515 of 5 February 1998; and
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                           Instance of the European Communities on 21 April 1998
                                                                   by Van Den Bergh Foods Limited, represented by Malcolm
                                                                   Nicholson and Michael Rowe, with an address for service
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss &
                                                                   Prussen, 2, place Winston Churchill.
The applicant, a company incorporated under law of the
United States of America, is a leading supplier of avionics        The applicant claims that the Court should:
systems and products for the commercial, military and
space market, who developed the industry's first flight            Ð declare the Commission decision of 11 March 1998
management system (FMS'). The FMS is the centrepiece                  relating to a proceeding under Articles 85 and 86 of
of an aircraft, able to control the flight from take-off all           the EC Treaty (Case Nos. IV/34.073, IV/35.436 and
the way through to landing, performing all of the complex              IV/34.395) void and annul it in its entirety;


title: Removal from the register of C-354/96

text:
C 7/12                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                10. 1. 98
          Removal from the register of C-88/96 (1)                          Removal from the register of C-183/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/32)                                                        (98/C 7/36)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court            By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-88/96 (reference for a         removal from the register of Case C-183/96 (Reference for
preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione           a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,
Prima Civile): Igino Mazzola Srl v. Amministrazione delle          Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil
Finanze dello Stato.                                               Section)): Icat Food Srl v. Amministrazione delle Finanze
                                                                   dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 133, 4. 5. 1996.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 210, 20. 7. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-121/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/33)                                       Removal from the register of C-204/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/37)
By order of 23 September 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             By order of 23 September 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-121/96 (reference for          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht                 removal from the register of Case C-204/96 (reference for
Hamburg): Sultan Bulut v. Deutsche Bundespost.                     a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht): E. F.
                                                                   Liebelt GmbH & Co. KG v. Marianne Seidel.
(1) OJ C 158, 1. 6. 1996.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 247, 24. 8. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-128/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/34)                                       Removal from the register of C-278/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/38)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-128/96 (Reference for          By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,                 of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil           removal from the register of Case C-278/96 (Reference for
Section)): Trinity Alimentari Italia SpA v. Amministrazione        a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,
delle Finanze dello Stato.                                         Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil
                                                                   Section)): Vezza SpA v. Amministrazione delle Finanze
                                                                   dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 158, 1. 6. 1996.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 318, 26. 10. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-155/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/35)
                                                                            Removal from the register of C-354/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/39)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-155/96 (Reference for          By order of 23 October 1997, the President of the Sixth
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,                 Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil           Communities has ordered the removal from the register
Section)): Icat Food Srl v. Amministrazione delle Finanze          of Case C-354/96: Commission of the European
dello Stato.                                                       Communities v. Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 180, 22. 6. 1996.                                         (1) OJ C 388, 21. 12. 1996.


title: Case T-380/10: Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Wabco Europe and Others v Commission

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/64

      Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Wabco Europe and Others v Commission
      (Case T-380/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/114)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Wabco Europe BVBA (Brussels, Belgium), Wabco Austria GesmbH (Vienna, Austria), Trane Inc. (Piscataway, United States), Ideal Standard Italia s.r.l. (Milan, Italy) and Ideal Standard GmbH (Bonn, Germany), (represented by: S. Völcker, F. Louis, A. Israel and N. Niejahr, lawyers, C. O’Daly and E. Batchelor, Solicitors, and F. Carlin, Barrister)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Partially annul Article 2 and, to the extent necessary, Article 1 (1) N. 3 and 4 of the Commission Decision No C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 in Case COMP/39092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures;

                  —

                  Reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants; and

                  —

                  Order the Commission to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By means of their application, the applicants seek, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the partial annulment of Commission Decision No C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 in Case COMP/39092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures, relating to a an agreement between undertakings covering the Belgian, German, French, Italian, Dutch and Austrian markets of bathroom fittings and fixtures, concerning the sale prices and the exchange of sensitive commercial information, as well as, in the alternative, the reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on them.
      In support of their application, the applicants put forward the following pleas in law:

                  Firstly, the applicants allege that the Commission disregarded the applicable legal standards in its attempts to establish the participation of Ideal Standard Italia s.r.l. and of Ideal Standard GmbH in a ceramics-related infringement in Italy.

                  Secondly, the applicants allege that the Commission failed to reduce the fine imposed on them for the French and Belgian infringements despite granting partial immunity from fines for such infringements under the last paragraph of point 23 of the Commission’s 2002 notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (1).

                  Thirdly, the applicants allege that the Commission erred in finding that Grohe Beteiligungs GmbH and Grohe AG and its subsidiaries, rather than Ideal Standard Italia s.r.l. and Ideal Standard GmbH, were the first to provide “significant added value” under the Commission’s 2002 notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases.

                  Finally, the applicants allege that the Commission’s retroactive application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (2) was unlawful, insofar as it penalised Ideal Standard Italia s.r.l. and Ideal Standard GmbH for the kind of information that it provided as a leniency applicant in the good faith expectation that the Commission would not drastically alter the applicable fining framework to their detriment.

         (1)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).

         (2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).


title: Case T-344/00: Action brought on 13 November 2000 by CEVA Santé Animale against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.2.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 45/19
Action brought on 13 November 2000 by CEVA Santé                        —     order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
Animale against the Commission of the European Com-                           proceedings.
                            munities
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                        (Case T-344/00)
                                                                        The applicant in the present case is a pharmaceutical company
                                                                        which markets a veterinary medicinal product containing the
                         (2001/C 45/42)                                 pharmaceutically active ingredient progesterone. The product
                                                                        marketed by the applicant is used for the purpose of controlling
                                                                        the period of sexual receptivity in cows and breeding mares. It
                                                                        can also be used for the therapeutical treatment of fertility
                                                                        disorders in cows and mares.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        The applicant states on this point that in December 1999 the
                                                                        Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP), after
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               examining the information forwarded by the Commission,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              confirmed its earlier 1996 recommendation for the inclusion
European Communities on 13 November 2000 by CEVA                        of progesterone in Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC)
Santé Animale, having its registered office in Libourne, France,        No 2377/90, of 26 June 1990, laying down a Community
represented by Denis Waelbroeck and Dirk Brinckman, of                  procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits
Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels.                           of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal
                                                                        origin (1).Thus there appeared to be no further reason for the
                                                                        Commission to continue blocking the procedure for the
                                                                        inclusion of progesterone in the above-mentioned Annex II.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             However, despite a renewed oral assurance by the Commission
                                                                        in October 2000 that a regulation including progesterone in
                                                                        this Annex II would be adopted without delay, no further
—    declare pursuant to Article 232 EC that the Commission             action has been undertaken by the Commission since then.
     has failed to comply with its obligations under Com-
     munity law by failing to take the necessary measures for
                                                                        In support of its claims, the applicant submits as follows:
     the inclusion of progesterone in Annex II to Regulation
     No 2377/90 following the issuing of the positive opinion
     of the CVMP and in particular to draw up a draft                   —     In breach of its obligations under Regulation No 2377/90,
     regulation including progesterone in Annex II and sub-                   especially Article 7(5) and (6) thereof, the Commission
     mitting it to the Standing Committee for approval;                       has failed to act;.
                                                                        —     In breach of the general principle of the protection of
—    order the Community, as represented here by the Com-                     legitimate expectations and the general principle of sound
     mission, to repair the damage suffered by the applicant                  administration, the Commission has failed to act;
     as a result of its unlawful failure to act and to set the
     amount of compensation at EURO 258 453, or at any
     other amount reflecting the damage suffered by the                 —     Its failure to act is not consistent with the authorisation
     applicant as further established by it in the course of                  within the Community of the use of progesterone for
     these proceedings, and especially taking due account of                  therapeutical and zootechnical use or with the recent
     future damage;                                                           initiatives of the Commission confirming that the use of
                                                                              hormonal substances for these purposes should continue
                                                                              to be allowed, and constitutes in reality a misuse of
—    in the alternative, order the parties to produce to the                  powers;
     Court within a reasonable period from the date of the
     judgment figures as to the amount of the compensation              —     The Commission’s failure to act constitutes a breach of
     agreed between the parties or, in the absence of agree-                  the applicant’s fundamental right to pursue its economic
     ment, order the parties to produce to the Court within                   activity and of the principle of proportionality.
     the same period their submissions with detailed figures in
     support;
                                                                        (1) OJ L 224, of 18.8.1990, p. 1.
—    order that interest at the annual rate of 8 %, or any other
     appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, be paid
     on the amount payable as from the date of the Court’s
     judgment until actual payment of that amount;


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/66

         Removal from the register of Case T-298/99 (1)

   (2004/C 94/167)

      (Language of the Case: Dutch)

   By order of 22 January 2004 the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case T-298/99: Firma Erkens Servicestation en Verhuurbedrijf V.O.F. v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 63 of 04.03.2000.


title: Case T-109/01: Action brought on 18 May 2001 by Fleuren Compost N.V v Commission of the European Communities

text:
11.8.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 227/25
Action brought on 10 May 2001 by Free Trade Foods N.V.                         17 December 1997 (2) whose provisions the contested
        v Commission of the European Communities                               regulation also declares applicable.
                         (Case T-108/01)
                                                                         (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 396/2001 providing for the
                                                                             continued application of safeguard measures for imports from the
                         (2001/C 227/48)                                     overseas countries and territories of sugar sector products with
                                                                             EC/OCT cumulation of origin for the period 1 March to 30 June
                                                                             2001, OJ L 058 of 28.2.2001, pp. 13 to 15.
                                                                         (2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2553/97 of 17 December 1997
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                            on rules for issuing the import licences for certain products
                                                                             covered by CN codes 1701, 1702, 1703and 1704 and qualifying
                                                                             as CP/OCT originating products, OJ 349 of 19.12.1997, pp. 26
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                             to 30.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 May 2001 by Free Trade Foods
N.V., whose registered office is at Curação (Dutch Antilles),
represented by M. Slotboom and N.J. Helder, Lawyers, Rot-
terdam.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1)    Annul Regulation No 396/2001 of 27 February 2001                   Action brought on 18 May 2001 by Fleuren Compost N.V
      [providing for the continued application of safeguard                      v Commission of the European Communities
      measures for imports from the overseas countries and
      territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumu-
      lation of origin for the period 1 March to 30 June 2001];                                   (Case T-109/01)
2)    declare that the Community is liable for the damage                                         (2001/C 227/49)
      suffered by Free Trade Foods N.V. as a result of Regulation
      No 396/2001 of 27 February 2001;
3)    order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         European Communities on 18 May 2001 by Fleuren Compost
                                                                         N.V., whose registered office is at Middelharnis (Netherlands),
                                                                         represented by Jules Stuyck, Lawyer, Brussels.
Free Trade Foods N.V. owns a sugar factory on Curação which
is geared to the processing of C-sugar originating in the
Community and which acquires OCT origin pursuant to                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
EC/OCT cumulation. That sugar can then be imported into the
Community free of duty.                                                  —     Annul the Commission Decision of 13 December 2000
                                                                               concerning the aid scheme which the Kingdom of the
                                                                               Netherlands has established in favour of six manure
However, pursuant to the Fourth Safeguard Measure (Com-                        processing undertakings, at least in so far as it relates to
mission Regulation No 396/2001 of 27 February 2001 (1)) a                      the applicant;
quota of 3 878 tons applies.
                                                                         —     Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-
                                                                               ings.
In support of its application the applicant submits the
following pleas:
—     infringement of Article 109 of the OCT Decision;                   Pleas in law and main arguments
—     infringement of the precedence established in the EC               The applicant has received, as a manure processing factory,
      Treaty in favour of OCT goods;                                     subsidies from the Netherlands authorities in the framework,
                                                                         according to the applicant, of the Bijdrageregeling Proefprojec-
—     infringement of Article 7(5) of the agreement on safe-             ten Mestverwerking (BPM) [contribution scheme for manure
      guard measures concluded in the context of the WTO,                processing pilot projects]. However, in Decision C(2000)4070
      and of Article 300(7) EC;                                          of 13 December 2000 addressed to the Netherlands authorities,
                                                                         the Commission requested recovery of the subsidy paid to the
—     unlawfulness of Commission Regulation No 2553/97 of                applicant and a number of other undertakings.
 ---pagebreak--- C 227/26              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11.8.2001
In support of its claim, the applicant pleads infringement of           Trade marks objected to       Verbal mark ‘Saint-Hubert 41’ —
Article 87(1) and (3)(c) of the EC Treaty. According to the             in the opposition pro-        Decision of 9 March 2001 in
applicant, the Commission, in its assessment of the aid                 cedure:                       procedure R-127/2000-1
awarded, did not take account of the specific, more expensive
production methods of the applicant required by the Nether-             Proprietor of the marks       the applicant
lands authorities whereby the smell is reduced. According to            objected to:
the applicant, this method of production is not obligatory in
the other Member States, as a result of which production is             Decision of the Oppo-         rejection of the applicant’s oppo-
cheaper. Furthermore, the applicant pleads infringement of              sition Division:              sition to the application for regis-
the Commission Decision of 6 July 1989 approving the                                                  tration of the mark ‘Hubert’
Bijdrageregeling Proefprojecten Mestverwerking and of
Article 88 of the EC Treaty. Finally, the applicant alleges             Decision of the Board of      rejection of the appeal lodged by
infringement of the duty to state reasons, the principle of             Appeal:                       the applicant
legitimate expectations and the right to a fair hearing.
                                                                        Grounds of claim:             violation of the notion of ‘likeli-
                                                                                hood of confusion’ referred to in
                                                                                Article 8(1)(b) of the Community
                                                                                Trade Mark Regulation (1)
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Védial S.A. against
   the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                        (Case T-110/01)
                        (2001/C 227/50)
                                                                        Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Saxonia Edelmetalle
                                                                        GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
                  (Language of the case: French)                                                    munities
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                   (Case T-111/01)
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 May 2001 by Védial S.A.,
established at Ludres (France), represented by Thierry van Innis                                 (2001/C 227/51)
and Geert Glas, avocats, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision adopted on 9 March 2001 in pro-                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      cedure R-127/2000-1;                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 23 May 2001 by Saxonia Edelme-
—     order the Office to pay all the costs.                            talle GmbH, of Halsbrücke (Germany), represented by Dr Peter
                                                                        von Woedtke, lawyer.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities of 28 March 2001 (Decision C(2001)
Applicant for the Com-        France Distribution                             1028) on the State aid granted by Germany in favour of
munity trade mark:                                                            EFBE Verwaltungs GmbH & Co. Management KG (now
                                                                              Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH, together with Zeitzer
The Community trade           the semi-figurative mark ‘Hubert’               Maschinen, Anlagen Geräte GmbH, LandTechnik Schlüter
mark concerned:               — application No 108530                         GmbH, ILKA MAFA Kältetechnik GmbH, SKL Motoren-
                                                                              und Systembautechnik GmbH, SKL Spezialapparatebau
Goods or service con-         various food products including                 GmbH, Magdeburger Eisengießerei GmbH, Saxonia Edel-
cerned:                       milk, other dairy products, vin-                metalle GmbH and Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH) —
                              egar and sauces, together with                  State aid No C41/99 (EXN 49/95) Germany.
                              hotel and catering services
                              (Classes 29, 30 and 42)                   —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-241/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV
   (Case C-241/12)
   2012/C 243/09
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank te Rotterdam

      Party to the main proceedings

   Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must a consignment of diesel be categorised as waste within the meaning of the (former (1) and new (2)) WSR (Waste Shipment Regulation) in the following circumstances:

                           (a)

                           the consignment consists of Ultra Light Sulphur Diesel, which has been unintentionally mixed with Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether;

                           (b)

                           after the consignment is delivered to a buyer, it transpires that — because of the mix — it does not satisfy the specifications agreed between the buyer and the vendor and is therefore ‘off-spec’;

                           (c)

                           the consignment — following a complaint by the buyer — is taken back by the vendor in accordance with the purchase agreement, and the vendor refunds the purchase price;

                           (d)

                           the vendor has the intention — whether or not after mixing it with another product — of placing the consignment back on the market?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           is it possible to specify a point in time in the abovementioned factual circumstances from which this is the case;

                           (b)

                           does the status of the consignment change to a non-waste product at any point in time between the delivery to the buyer and a new blending carried out by or on behalf of the vendor and, if so, at what point?

               3.

               Is it relevant to the answer to question 1:

                           (a)

                           whether the consignment could be used as fuel in the same way as pure ULSD, but because of its lower flashpoint it no longer satisfied the (safety) requirements;

                           (b)

                           whether, as result of the new composition, the consignment could not be stored by the buyer pursuant to an environmental permit;

                           (c)

                           whether the consignment could not be used by the buyer for the purpose for which it had been bought, namely for sale as diesel fuel from the pump;

                           (d)

                           whether or not the buyer intended to return the consignment to the vendor pursuant to the purchase agreement;

                           (e)

                           whether the vendor did in fact intend to take back the consignment with a view to processing it through blending it and to place it back on the market;

                           (f)

                           whether or not the consignment can be restored either to the state originally intended or processed into a product that is marketable for a price approaching that of the market value of the original ULSD consignment;

                           (g)

                           whether that restoration/processing is a common production process;

                           (h)

                           whether the market value of the consignment in the state that it is in at the time that it is taken back by the vendor is (virtually) the same as the price of a product that does satisfy the agreed specifications;

                           (i)

                           whether the consignment taken back can be sold on the market in the state that it is in at the time that is taken back without being processed;

                           (j)

                           whether trade in products such as the consignment is common and is not regarded in relevant trade circles as trade in waste?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (former WSR) (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1)

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (new WSR) (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1)


title: Case C-339/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 20 July 2007 — Rechtsanwalt Christopher Seagon als Insolvenzverwalter über das Vermögen der Frick Teppichboden Supermärkte GmbH v Deko Marty Belgium N.V.

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 20 July 2007 — Rechtsanwalt Christopher Seagon als Insolvenzverwalter über das Vermögen der Frick Teppichboden Supermärkte GmbH v Deko Marty Belgium N.V.
   (Case C-339/07)
   (2007/C 269/36)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rechtsanwalt Christopher Seagon als Insolvenzverwalter über das Vermögen der Frick Teppichboden Supermärkte GmbH (Christopher Seagon, lawyer, as liquidator in insolvency proceedings in respect of the assets of Frick Teppichboden Supermärkte GmbH)

      Defendant: Deko Marty Belgium N.V.
   Questions referred

               1.

               On interpreting Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (1) of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings and Article 1(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (2) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, do the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings regarding the debtor's assets have been opened have international jurisdiction under Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 in respect of an action in the context of the insolvency to set a transaction aside that is brought against a person whose registered office is in another Member State?

               2.

               If the first question is to be answered in the negative:
               Does an action in the context of the insolvency to set a transaction aside fall within Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2000 in Case C-46/99: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 93/104/EC — Organisation of working time — Failure to transpose)

text:
23.9.2000                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 273/3
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     2.    Article 4(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 is to be
                                                                                interpreted as meaning that the option for taxation exercised at
                                                                                the time of the supply of buildings or parts of buildings and the
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                         land on which they stand must relate inseparably to the
                                                                                buildings or parts of buildings and the land on which they
                                                                                stand.
                             of 8 June 2000
                                                                             (1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.
in Case C-400/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Goslar v Brigitte
                              Breitsohl (1)
(Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax —
Articles 4, 17 and 28 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC —
Status as taxable person and exercise of the right to deduct
in the event of failure of the economic activity envisaged,
prior to the first VAT determination — Supplies of buildings
and the land on which they stand — Whether possible to
limit the option for tax to buildings only, thereby excluding                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                the land)
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                            (2000/C 273/04)
                                                                                of 8 June 2000
                     (Language of the case: German)                          in Case C-46/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                             Directive 93/104/EC — Organisation of working time —
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                Failure to transpose)
In Case C-400/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                           (2000/C 273/05)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesfinanzhof,
Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Finanzamt Goslar and Brigitte
Breitsohl — on the interpretation of Articles 4, 17 and 28 of                                     (Language of the case: French)
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 (OJ 1977 L 145 p. 1) —                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
the Court, (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de                                       in the European Court Reports)
Almeida, (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen,
G. Hirsch, V. Skouris and F. Macken, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                  In Case C-46/99: Commission of the European Communities
judgment on 8 June 2000, in which it has ruled:                              (Agent: D. Gouloussis) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-
                                                                             Bellanger and C. Bergeot) — application for a declaration that,
                                                                             by failing to adopt and, in the alternative, by failing to
1.    Articles 4 and 17 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC            communicate to the Commission within the prescribed period,
      of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the                 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
      Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system               fully to comply with Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 Nov-
      of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment are to be              ember 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of
      interpreted as meaning that the right to deduct the value added        working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) the French Republic has
      tax paid on transactions carried out with a view to the                failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and that
      realisation of a planned economic activity still exists even where     directive — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of:
      the tax authority is aware, from the time of the first tax             R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch and V. Skou-
      assessment, that the economic activity envisaged, which was to         ris (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
      give rise to taxable transactions, will not be taken up.               Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 June 2000, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 273/4                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           23.9.2000
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period      1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed periods,
      all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary          all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
      to comply with Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November                  to comply with the provisions referred to in the first subpara-
      1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working             graph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June
      time, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations             1996 amending and consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC in
      under that directive;                                                      order to ensure financing of veterinary inspections and controls
                                                                                on live animals and certain animal products and amending
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                               Directives 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC, the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that subpara-
                                                                                graph;
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
                                                                           2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
                                                                           3.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (First Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                             of 8 June 2000                                                           (Fourth Chamber)
in Case C-91/99: Commission of the European Communi-                                                    of 8 June 2000
                  ties v Portuguese Republic (1)
                                                                           in Case C-264/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Italian Republic (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 96/43/EC — Failure to transpose within the
                           prescribed period)                              (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                           Articles 12 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC — Haulage by operators
                                                                           established in other Member States — National rules requir-
                            (2000/C 273/06)                                         ing enrolment on the register of undertakings)
                                                                                (2000/C 273/07)
                   (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-91/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: A. M. Alves Vieira) v Portuguese Republic (Agents:                 In Case C-264/99: Commission of the European Communities
L. Fernandes and M. J. Carvalho) — application for a declar-               (Agents: A. Aresu and M. Patakia) v Italian Republic (Agent:
ation that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all         Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by I. M. Braguglia) —
the measures necessary fully to comply with Council Directive              application for a declaration that, by maintaining rules requir-
96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 amending and consolidating Direc-                 ing that Community nationals who carry on business as
tive 85/73/EEC in order to ensure financing of veterinary                  hauliers in Italy as service providers be entered on the
inspections and controls on live animals and certain animal                professional register kept by Chambers of Commerce following
products and amending Directives 90/675/EEC and                            authorisation by the Ministry for the Interior, the Italian
91/496/EEC (OJ 1996 L 162, p. 1), the Portuguese Republic                  Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the             EC, 43 EC and 49 EC — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
Court (First Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of                composed of: D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur), President of the
the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;                 Chamber, A. La Pergola and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; S. Alber,
J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a              Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
judgment on 8 June 2000, in which it:                                      on 8 June 2000, in which it:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 28 April 1998 in Case C-200/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln): Metronome Musik GmbH v. Music Point Hokamp GmbH (Copyright and related rights - Rental and lending right - Validity of Directive 92/100/EEC)

text:
4.7.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 209/5
corrective lenses purchased from an optician established in                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
another Member State, on the ground that prior                                              of 28 April 1998
authorisation is required for the purchase of any medical
product abroad.                                                      in Case C-158/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                     from the Cour de Cassation): Raymond Kohll v. Union
                                                                                des Caisses de Maladie (1)
(1) OJ C 137 of 3.6.1995.
                                                                     (Freedom to provide services Ð Reimbursement of
                                                                     medical expenses incurred in another Member State Ð
                                                                     Prior authorisation of the competent institution Ð Public
                                                                                health Ð Dental treatment)
                                                                                (98/C 209/09)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 (Language of the case: French)
                       of 28 April 1998
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
in Case C-118/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                     published in the European Court Reports)
Länsrätten i Dalarnas Län, formerly Länsrätten i Koppar-
bergs Län): Jessica Safir v. Skattemyndigheten i Dalarnas            In Case C-158/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
   Län, formerly Skattemyndigheten i Kopparbergs Län (1)             of the EC Treaty from the Luxembourg Cour de Cassation
                                                                     (Court of Cassation) for a preliminary ruling in the
(Freedom to provide services Ð Free movement of capital
                                                                     proceedings pending before that court between Raymond
Ð Taxation of savings in the form of life assurance Ð
                                                                     Kohll and Union des Caisses de Maladie Ð on the
Legislation of a Member State establishing different tax
                                                                     interpretation of Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty Ð
regimes according to the place of establishment of the
                                                                     the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
             undertaking providing the services)
                                                                     President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and
                        (98/C 209/08)                                M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C.
                                                                     Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,
                                                                     D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and
               (Language of the case: Swedish)                       L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate General;
                                                                     D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 April 1998, in
                                                                     which it has ruled:
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                    Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty preclude national
                                                                     rules under which reimbursement, in accordance with the
                                                                     scale of the State of insurance, of the cost of dental
In Case C-118/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           treatment provided by an orthodontist established in
of the EC Treaty from Länsrätten i Dalarnas Län,                     another Member State is subject to authorisation by the
formerly Länsrätten i Kopparbergs Län (County                        insured person's social security institution.
Administrative Court, County of Kopparberg), Sweden,
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before           (1) OJ C 180 of 22.6.1996.
that court between Jessica Safir and Skattemyndigheten i
Dalarnas Län, formerly Skattemyndigheten i Kopparbergs
Län Ð on the interpretation of Articles 6, 59, 60, 73b
and 73d of the EC Treaty Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.
Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm,
M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),
P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.                                      of 28 April 1998
Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Judges; G. Tesauro,               in Case C-200/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling
Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,               from the Landgericht Köln): Metronome Musik GmbH v.
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 April 1998,                           Music Point Hokamp GmbH (1)
in which it has ruled:
                                                                     (Copyright and related rights Ð Rental and lending right
                                                                                Ð Validity of Directive 92/100/EEC)
Article 59 of the EC Treaty precludes the application of                                     (98/C 209/10)
national legislation relating to the taxation of capital life
assurance such as the legislation in question in the main                          (Language of the case: German)
proceedings.
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(1) OJ C 158 of 1.6.1996.                                                     published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-200/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     of the EC Treaty from the Landgericht (Regional Court)
 ---pagebreak--- C 209/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.7.98
Cologne, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the                    1. Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty precludes a supplier
proceedings pending before that court between                             established in a Member State of the Community from
Metronome Musik GmbH and Music Point Hokamp                               imposing on a distributor established in another
GmbH Ð on the validity of Article 1(1) of Council                         Member State to which the supplier entrusts the
Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental                        distribution of his products in a territory outside the
right and lending right and on certain rights related to                  Community a prohibition of making any sales in any
copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ L 346 of              territory other than the contractual territory, including
27.11.1992, p. 61) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.                        the territory of the Community, either by direct
Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H.                             marketing or by re-exportation from the contractual
Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of                    territory, if that prohibition has the effect of
Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,                      preventing, restricting or distorting competition within
P. J. G. Kapteyn, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet                       the Community and is liable to affect the pattern of
(Rapporteur), G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; G.                 trade between Member States. This might be the case
Tesauro, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                           where the Community market in the products in
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                   question is characterised by an oligopolistic structure
judgment on 28 April 1998, in which it has ruled:                         or by an appreciable difference between the prices
                                                                          charged for the contractual product within the
                                                                          Community and those charged outside the Community
Examination of the question submitted has disclosed no                    and where, in view of the position occupied by the
factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 1(1)           supplier of the products at issue and the extent of the
of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992                       supplier's production and sales in the Member States,
on rental right and lending right and on certain rights                   the prohibition entails a risk that it might have an
related to copyright in the field of intellectual property.               appreciable effect on the pattern of trade between
                                                                          Member States such as to undermine attainment of the
(1) OJ C 233 of 10.8.1996.                                                objectives of the common market.
                                                                     2. Provisions intended to prevent a distributor from
                                                                          selling directly in the Community and re-exporting to
                                                                          the Community contractual products which the
                                                                          distributor has undertaken to sell in non-member
                                                                          countries do not escape the prohibition laid down in
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Article 85(1) of the Treaty on the ground that the
                       of 28 April 1998                                   Community supplier of the products concerned
                                                                          distributes those products within the Community
in Case C-306/96: (reference for a preliminary ruling from                through a selective distribution network covered by an
the Court d'Appel de Versailles): Javico International and                exemption decision under Article 85(3) of the Treaty.
   Javico AG v. Yves Saint Laurent Parfums SA (YSLP) (1)
(Competition Ð Luxury cosmetic products Ð Selective                  (1) OJ C 336 of 9.11.1996.
distribution system Ð Obligation to export to a non-
member country Ð Prohibition of re-importation into,
            and of marketing in, the Community)
                        (98/C 209/11)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
               (Language of the case: French)                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 30 April 1998
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       in Case C-136/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
         published in the European Court Reports)                    the French Cour de Cassation): Caisse Nationale d'Assu-
                                                                     rance Vieillesse des Travailleurs SalarieÂs (CNAVTS) v.
                                                                                EÂvelyne Thibault (1)
In Case C-306/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Cour d'Appel de Versailles                   (Equal treatment for men and women Ð Directive 76/
(France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                 207/EEC Ð Maternity leave Ð Right to an assessment of
pending before that court between Javico International                                         performance)
and Javico AG and Yves Saint Laurent Parfums SA                                               (98/C 209/12)
(YSLP), on the interpretation of Article 85(1) of the EC
Treaty Ð the Court, composed of G. C. Rodríguez                                       (Language of the case: French)
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann and R. Schintgen
(Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, D. A. O. Edward,                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges,                      published in the European Court Reports)
G. Tesauro, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on            In Case C-136/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
28 April 1998 in which it has ruled:                                 of the EC Treaty from the French Cour de Cassation