title: Case T-371/03: Action brought on 7 November 2003 by Vincenzo le Voci against the Council of the European Union

text:
24.1.2004                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 21/37
The applicant brought an application before the Court of First              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Instance (3) seeking the annulment of Regulation No 2380/98
insofar as the Council failed to give retroactive effect to the             —     annul the appointing authority’s decision of 11 March
above amendment. By judgement dated 29 June 2000 (4) the                          2003 not to accept the applicant’s candidature for the
Court of First Instance annulled the contested provision.                         post of Director in the Directorate ‘Africa, Caribbean,
Thereafter the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 133/2001                        Pacific’ (AIDCO.C), as a result of the appointing auth-
of 22 January 2001 (5) amending Regulation (EC) No 1567/97                        ority’s decision of 8 January 2003 to appoint another
and granting retroactive effect to the provision in question. All                 person to that post;
of the applicant’s payments of duties imposed by Regulation
No 1567/97 were refunded to it.                                             —     in any event, orders the defendant to pay the costs.
By its present action the applicant seeks to obtain compen-                 Pleas in law and main arguments
sation in the form of interest on the amounts of import duty
which it initially paid and which were later refunded to it, as
well as in the form of legal expenses it incurred in the course             The applicant in this case challenges the appointing authority’s
of administrative proceedings before the Commission and the                 rejection of his candidature for the post of Director in the
German customs authorities.                                                 Directorate ‘Africa, Caribbean, Pacific’ (AIDCO.C).
                                                                            In support of his claims, he alleges infringement of Article 7,
In support of its application the applicant submits that the                of the second paragraph of Article 25, and Articles 29(1)(a) and
Council acted illegally in refusing to abide by the consequences            45(1) of the Staff Regulations, irregularity in the administrative
of the review findings leading to Regulation 2380/98 and that               procedure prior to the contested decision, and disregard of
this illegal behaviour was of sufficient gravity as to give rise to         general legal principles, such as the protection of legitimate
liability under Article 288 EC.                                             expectations, equal treatment and career progression.
(1 ) OJ L 208, 2.8.1997, p. 31-43.                                          In that regard, the applicant submits, in particular, that his
(2 ) OJ L 296 , 5.11.1998, p. 1-5.                                          candidature was not considered fairly and that he was not, at
(3 ) Case no T-7/99, notified in OJ C 86, 27.3.1999, p. 23.                 the very least, short listed without any statement of reasons,
(4 ) Notified in OJ C 259, 9.9.2000, p. 17.                                 although the appointing authority had recognised his abilities
(5 ) OJ L 23, 25.1.2001, p. 9.                                              for A2 post of Director AIDCO. Furthermore, the appointing
                                                                            authority subsequently established criteria not set out in the
                                                                            vacancy notice.
                                                                            Finally, the appointing authority made a manifest error of
                                                                            assessment in the comparison of the candidates’ respective
                                                                            merits.
Action brought on 5 November 2003 by Jacques Wunen-
burger against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            Action brought on 7 November 2003 by Vincenzo le Voci
                          (Case T-370/03)                                            against the Council of the European Union
                           (2004/C 21/78)                                                           (Case T-371/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/79)
                     (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   An action against the Council of the European Union was
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities on 5 November 2003 by Jacques                          Communities on 7 November 2003 by Vincenzo le Voci,
Wunenburger, residing in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by                   Brussels, (Belgium), represented by B. van de Wal and E. Oude
E. Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.             Elferink, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- C 21/38                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           24.1.2004
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Action brought on 12 November 2003 by Solo Italia S.r.l.
                                                                          against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
—     declare the internal competition A/270 invalid and void,                                         Market
      or at least declare invalid the decision of the Selection
      Board of 28 July 2003 not to admit the applicant to the
      oral test;                                                                                (Case T-373/03)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicant
                                                                                (2004/C 21/80)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The challenged Decision in the present case is the non-
admission of the applicant to the oral test of the internal               An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
competition A/270, which offered grade B officials to acquire             Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
grade A.                                                                  European Communities on 12 November 2003 by Solo Italia,
                                                                          established in Ossona (Italy), represented by A. Bensoussan,
                                                                          M.-E. Haas, L. Tellier-Loniewski, lawyers, with an address for
In support of his conclusions, the applicant claims that:                 service in Luxembourg.
—     the content of one of the written tests (A 1) was not
      confined within the limits that were laid down in the
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      notice of the competition. With regard to this, it is stated
      that instead of making an analysis of a file with respect
      to a particular EU issue and summarizing it, the candidates         —     declare the action to be admissible and, accordingly,
      were also expected to give their own strategic input. The                 annul Decision No R 0208/2003-2 of the Board of
      test required an approach, and the application of different               Appeal of 10 September 2003 and hold that it is for the
      intellectual and writing skills, other than those for which               Office to draw the appropriate conclusions from the
      the candidates were prepared. This deviation constitutes                  operative part of and the grounds for the judgment to be
      a breach of the requirements for the notification of                      adopted;
      competitions as laid down in Article 1, Annex III, of the
      Staff Regulations.
                                                                          —     rule on the costs and order the defendant to bear its own
                                                                                costs and to pay all of the applicant’s costs.
—     One of the working documents handed out for the
      A 1 tests contained contradictions and errors. These
      imperfections constitute a breach of both the principle of
      non-discrimination and the principle of good manage-
      ment and sound administration.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     The Spanish version of one of the working documents
      contained additional fundamental errors. This constitutes
      a breach of the principle of non-discrimination between             Applicant for Com-             Solo Italia S.r.l.
      candidates of different nationalities participating in the          munity trade mark:
      test.
                                                                          Community trade mark           Word mark ‘PARMITALIA’ in
—     They have reasons to believe that the mastery of the                sought:                        respect of goods in Class 29
      Italian language within the Selection Board was not                                                (cheeses).
      sufficient to objectively assess the Italian tests, which
      would constitute a breach of the principle of non-                  Proprietor of mark or          Nuova Sala S.r.l.
      discrimination.                                                     sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                          sition proceedings:
—     There has been a lack of non-discriminatory standards
      for the evaluation of the written test and lack of                  Mark or sign cited in          Figurative Community trade mark
      transparency due to the lack of an evaluation memor-                opposition:                    ‘PARMITAL’ for goods in Class 29
      andum, both of which impaired the possibility of judicial                                          (Italian grated cheeses).
      scrutiny and control.
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-          Refusal of the application for
                                                                          sition Division:               registration.


title: Case C-310/02: Action brought on 2 September 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
12.10.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 247/11
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 4 September 2002 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                                                                                Republic
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case C-307/02.
                                                                                (Case C-311/02)
( 1) OJ 2000 L 103, p. 70.
                                                                                (2002/C 247/19)
Action brought on 2 September 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the United
                               Kingdom
                                                                          An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
                           (Case C-310/02)                                Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 September
                                                                          2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by F. Franca and M. Konstantinidis, with an address
                           (2002/C 247/18)                                for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 September               The Commission claims that the Court should:
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Lena Ström and Xavier Lewis, acting as agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          —     declare that, by failing to adopt or, in the alternative, to
                                                                                notify to the Commission, within the time-limit laid
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                     down, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                                necessary to comply fully with Directive 98/27/EC of the
1)     declare that by failing to adopt for Gibraltar the laws,                 European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May
       regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                   1998 ( 1) on injunctions for the protection of consumers’
       comply with Commission Directive 98/98/EC (1) of                         interests, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under the EC Treaty;
       15 December 1998 adapting to technical progress for the
       25th time the Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the
       approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative
       provisions relating to the classification, packaging and           —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
       labelling of dangerous substances, or in any event, by
       failing to notify such provisions to the Commission the
       United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under
       that Directive;
2)     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     infringement of the third paragraph of Article 249 and
                                                                                the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty;
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
in case C-305/02 (2). Moreover, the Commission considers that
the exclusion of the customs and commercial policy provisions             —     infringement of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/27/EC.
as set out in the Act of Accession with regard to Gibraltar does
not exclude the application of Article 95 of the EC Treaty and
secondary legislation adopted thereunder.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ No L 166, 11.6.1998, p. 51.
( 1) OJ L 355, 30.12.1998, p. 1.
( 2) See p. 9 of the present Official Journal.


title: Case C-436/02: Action brought on 2 December 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 19/24                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          25.1.2003
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                         during the years 1999 and 2000, Ireland has failed to
the Court should:                                                              fulfil its obligations under Article 5 (1) of Directive 95/
                                                                               21/EC of 19 June 1995 on port State control of
—     Declare that, by failing to apply the provisions on the                  shipping (1);
      public lending right set out in Directive 92/100/EEC of
      19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and            2)     order Ireland to pay the costs.
      on certain rights related to copyright in the field of
      intellectual property, (1) the Kingdom of Belgium has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of
      that Directive;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs of the
      proceedings.
                                                                        Article 5(1) of Directive 95/21/EC, in its wording at the
                                                                        material time, imposes an obligation on each Member State to
                                                                        inspect at least 25 % of the number of individual foreign ships
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         which enter its ports in a given year. It is clear from the facts
                                                                        that Ireland failed to fulfil this obligation for the years
                                                                        1999 and 2000 because in those years it inspected 7,5 % and
Although Belgium has provided for a right to remuneration
                                                                        14,6 % respectively of the number of ships that entered its
for authors in those cases in which the latter cannot prohibit
                                                                        ports.
lending, none of the implementing measures provided for by
Article 63 of the Law of 30 June 1994 on copyright
and related rights has been adopted and the amount of
remuneration has therefore never been fixed.                            (1 ) Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the
                                                                             enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and
                                                                             sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States,
The Belgian authorities err in invoking difficulties in dis-                 of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention
                                                                             and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control)
tinguishing the categories of establishments which may be                    (OJ L 157, 07.07.1995, p. 1).
exempted under Article 5(3) of the Directive. If the circum-
stances prevailing in the Member State in question do not
make it possible to draw a valid distinction between categories
of establishments, the solution must lie in imposing the
obligation to pay the remuneration in question on all of the
establishments concerned.
( 1) OJ 1992 L 346 of 27.11.1992, p. 61.
                                                                        Action brought on 4 December 2002 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-439/02)
Action brought on 2 December 2002 by the Commission                                                 (2003/C 19/42)
        of the European Communities against Ireland
                          (Case C-436/02)
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                           (2003/C 19/41)                               Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 December
                                                                        2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by K. Simonsson and W. Wils, acting as Agents.
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 2 December 2002 by               The applicant claims that the Court should:
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Knut Simonsson, acting as agent, with an address for service
                                                                        1.     Declare that, by failing to carry out a number of annual
in Luxembourg.                                                                 inspections corresponding to at least 25 % of the number
                                                                               of individual vessels entering its ports in 1999 and 2000,
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                    the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                               under Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995
1)    declare that, by failing to carry out an annual total                    concerning port State control (1);
      number of inspections corresponding to at least 25 % of
      the number of individual ships which entered its ports            2.     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case T-163/03: Action brought on 4 May 2003 by Scania AB against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.8.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 184/37
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —      annul the Secretary-General's decision of 13 June 2002
The applicants in the present case seek the annulment of the                     which confirms, without amendment, the applicant's staff
Commission's Decision approving the grant by the United                          report for the period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;
Kingdom of State aid, in the form of ‘rescue aid’, to British
Energy plc (BE), a generator of electricity in the United                 —      annul the Commission's decision of 13 January 2003
Kingdom. The main source of its electricity is nuclear power.                    rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on
                                                                                13 September 2002;
The applicants contend that the contested Decision is unlawful            —      order the defendant to pay damages of EUR 10 000;
in as much as it failed adequately or properly to assess
whether the aid was warranted by serious social difficulties,             —      order the defendant to pay the full costs of the proceed-
and whether the amount of aid was restricted to the minimum                      ings.
necessary, both in accordane with point 23(e) of the Guidelines
on State aid for Rescuing and Restructureting firms in diffi-
culty (1).
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In particular, the applicants submit that the defendant institu-          The applicant is an official in DG II of the European Commis-
tion wrongly concluded that, in the absence of the aid in                 sion. With a delay of almost two years, the appellant was the
question, BE would be insolvent and would most certainly                  subject of a staff report for the period 1997 to 1999. That
have to cease operations, without considering whether puttig              report was confirmed by the appeal assessor.
BE into administration would have been an appropriate rescue
option entailing the grant of less aid, nor the possibility
involving the closure of only one or several of its plants as             The applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest
opposed to all of them.                                                   error of assessment and misused its powers in drawing up that
                                                                          report. In support of his claims, the applicant also maintains
                                                                          that the Commission failed to comply with Article 43 of the
Moreover, the applicants dissagree with the Commision's                   Staff Regulations, thus giving rise to procedural defects. Finally,
conclusion that nuclear plants cannot be mothballed and that              the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state
BE's plants could not be closed without giving rise to serious            reasons.
concerns over nuclear safety.
Finally, the applicants submit that the Commission have
wrongly concluded that the closure of BE's plants led to a
loss of 20 % of UK electricity generating capacity such as to
threaten security of supply and, in any event, failed to consider         Action brought on 4 May 2003 by Scania AB against the
the reduced impact on generating capacity of closing only one                        Commission of the European Communities
or several of BE's plants.
                                                                                (Case T-163/03)
(1) OJ 1999 No C 288, p. 2.
                                                                                (2003/C 184/85)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                          nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 4 May 2003 by Scania AB, Söder-
Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Michael Cwik against
                                                                          tälje, Sweden, represented by Mr S. Pappas, lawyer.
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case T-157/03)
                                                                          —      annul the Decision of 4 Mars 2003 of the Merger Task
                                                                                Force of the European Commission.
                         (2003/C 184/84)
                                                                          —      annul the Decision of 16 April 2003 of the Merger Task
                                                                                Force of the European Commission.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          —      annul the Decision of 24 April 2003 of the Merger Task
                                                                                Force of the European Commission.
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                   —      annul the refusal of the Commission to review the
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     arrangement of the divestiture of the shareholding of
European Communities on 30 April 2003 by Michael Cwik,                           Volvo in Scania and enforce an immediate divestiture as
residing at Tervuren, Belgium, represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer,                 requested during the meeting of the 20th February 2003
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                       and put on in the letter of the 21st February 2003.
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/38               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          2.8.2003
—     order the Defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.              the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                            8 May 2003 by Ampafrance SA, established in Cholet (France),
                                                                            represented by C. Bercial Arias, lawyer.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             Johnson & Johnson GmbH was also a party to the proceedings
                                                                            before the First Board of Appeal.
The applicant is a truck and bus manufacturer. By means of
the contested decisions, the Commission refused to enforce an               The applicant claims that the Court should:
immediate divestiture of the shareholding of AB Volvo in                    —     annul or vary those parts of the decision given by the
Scania AB and refused to communicate to the applicant the                         First Board of Appeal of the defendant on 4 March 2003
confidential terms of the divestiture of the Shareholding of AB                   in Case R 220/2002-1 in which the applicant's claims
Volvo in Scania AB as stipulated in the AB Volvo/Renault                          were not upheld and, consequently, rule that ‘babies'
Véhicule Industriel (VI) decision. On the basis of these                          napkins of absorbent cotton’ are not similar to the goods
Commission Decisions, AB Volvo has been able to maintain a                        covered by the German trade mark ‘bebe’
dominant position vis-à-vis Scania for almost 4 years.                            (No 1 168 346), that there are no similarities liable to
                                                                                lead to a likelihood of confusion between the marks
In support of its claim, the applicant invokes Articles 8 (4), 6                  ‘bebe’ and ‘monBeBé’ (logo) and that Community trade
and 18(3) of the Merger Regulation (1).                                           mark application No 297 309 is to be registered in its
                                                                                entirety;
According to the applicant, the Commission infringed Article 8              —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
(4) of the Merger Regulation by refusing to enforce an
immediate divestiture at the applicant's request. The applicant             Pleas in law and main arguments
argues that the minority shareholding of AB Volvo constitutes
de jure and de facto, sole or joint control with investor AB                Applicant for Community        Ampafrance SA
over Scania which should have been stopped by the Commis-                   trade mark:
sion.
Furthermore, the applicant invokes Article 6 of the Merger
Regulation. The applicant submits that the Commission should                Community       trade  mark    Mixed word and figurative mark
have revoked the Volvo/Renault decision and reviewed the                    sought:                        ‘monbebé’      —      Application
terms of the divestiture. The applicant alleges that Volvo                                                 No 297 309, lodged in respect
infringed its undertaking pertaining to the divestiture when                                               of goods in Classes 3, 5, 8, 10,
participating in the decision-making process of Scania.                                                    11, 12, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25
                                                                                and 28.
The applicant also claims that the Commission should have
disclosed to Scania the information relating to the confidential
approved terms of the divestiture as stipulated in the Volvo/               Proprietor of mark or sign     Johnson & Johnson GmbH
Renault (VI) decision. The applicant claims to be a directly                cited in the opposition pro-
involved party to whom the Commission should have granted                   ceedings:
access to the information contained in the Volvo/Renault
decision.
Finally, the applicant argues that any prolongation for the                 Mark or sign cited in op-      National trade mark ‘bebe’, re-
accomplishment of the divestiture from 2003 to 2004 is not                  position:                      gistered for goods in Classes 3,
automatic but should have been assessed and justified by the                                               16 and 24.
Commission.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21.12.1989 on the                Decision of the Opposition     Rejection of the opposition.
    control of concentrations between undertakings (JO L 257, p. 13).       Division:
                                                                            Decision of the Board of       Partial annulment of the deci-
                                                                            Appeal:                        sion of the Opposition Division
Action brought on 8 May 2003 by Ampafrance SA against                                                      and partial rejection of the ap-
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                                        plication for registration as re-
               (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                            gards certain goods such as
                                                                                soaps etc; dismissal of the re-
                                                                                mainder of the appeal
                           (Case T-164/03)
                           (2003/C 184/86)
                                                                            Pleas in law:                  Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                                         of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                                                                (likelihood of confusion).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2003 in Case T-70/02: Griffin (Europe) Headquaters NV v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Decision No 2455/2001/EC — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
2.8.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 184/35
        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers, v European Parliament
                                                                            (Agents, C. Pennera and M. Moore) and Council of the
                           of 6 May 2003                                    European Union (Agents: M. Sims-Robertson and B. Hoff-
                                                                            Nielsen), supported by Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                            nities (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and K. Fitch): Application for
in Case T-46/02: Finchimica SpA and I.PI.CI — Industria
                                                                            partial annulment of Decision No 2455/2001/EC of the
Prodotti Chimici SpA v European Parliament and Council
                                                                            European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November
                     of the European Union (1)
                                                                            2001 establishing the list of priority substances in the field of
                                                                            water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC (OJ 2001
(Decision No 2455/2001/EC — Action for annulment —                          L 331, p. 1), the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
                           Inadmissibility)                                 composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
                                                                            Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 6 May 2003,
                          (2003/C 184/78)                                   the operative part of which is as follows:
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-46/02, Finchimica SpA, established in Manerbio                    2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay the costs
(Italy), I.PI.CI — Industria Prodotti Chimici SpA, established in                 incurred by the Parliament and the Council.
Novate Milanese (Italy), represented by K. Van Maldegem and
C. Mereu, lawyers, v European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera
and M. Moore) and Council of the European Union (Agents:                    3.    The Commission shall bear its own costs.
M. Sims-Robertson and B. Hoff-Nielsen), supported by
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero
Jordana and K. Fitch): Application for partial annulment of                 (1) OJ C 144 of 15.06.2002.
Decision No 2455/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 20 November 2001 establishing the list of
priority substances in the field of water policy and amending
Directive 2000/60/EC (OJ 2001 L 331, p. 1), the Court of First
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President,
J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an
order on , the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay the costs
      incurred by the Parliament and the Council.
3.    The Commission shall bear its own costs.                                                         of 6 May 2003
(1) OJ C 144 of 15.06.2002.                                                 in Case T-70/02: Griffin (Europe) Headquaters NV v
                                                                            European Parliament and Council of the European
                                                                                Union (1)
                                                                            (Decision No 2455/2001/EC — Action for annulment —
                                                                                Inadmissibility)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 6 May 2003                                                              (2003/C 184/80)
in Case T-57/02: Makhteshim Agan Holding BV v
European Parliament and Council of the European                                                 (Language of the case: English)
                              Union (1)
(Decision No 2455/2001/EC — Action for annulment —
                           Inadmissibility)                                 In Case T-70/02, Griffin (Europe) Headquarters NV, established
                                                                            in Zaventem (Belgium), represented by K. Van Maldegem and
                          (2003/C 184/79)                                   C. Mereu, lawyers, v European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera
                                                                            and M. Moore) and Council of the European Union (Agents:
                                                                            M. Sims-Robertson and B. Hoff-Nielsen), supported by
                    (Language of the case: English)                         Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero
                                                                            Jordana and K. Fitch): Application for partial annulment of
                                                                            Decision No 2455/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of
In Case T-57/02, Makhteshim Agan Holding BV, established in                 the Council of 20 November 2001 establishing the list of
Amsterdam (Netherlands), represented by P. Logelain, K. Van                 priority substances in the field of water policy and amending
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/36               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          2.8.2003
Directive 2000/60/EC (OJ 2001 L 331, p. 1), the Court of First                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President,
J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an                                       of 23 April 2003
order on 6 May 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            in Case T-73/03: Bernard Zaoui and Others v Commission
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                                        of the European Communities (1)
2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay the costs              (Non-contractual liability of the Community — Application
      incurred by the Parliament and the Council.                                                   manifestly unfounded)
3.    The Commission shall bear its own costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 184/82)
(1) OJ C 144 of 15.06.2002.                                                                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Case T-73/03, Bernard Zaoui, residing in Combs La Ville
                                                                            (France), Lucien Zaoui, residing in Netanya (Israel) and Deborah
                                                                            Zaoui, residing in Ramat Gan (Israel), represented by
                                                                            J.A. Buchinger, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 bourg, against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            — application for compensation for damage allegedly suffered
                                                                            by the applicants following an attack carried out in Netanya
                         of 30 April 2003                                   (Israel) on 27 March 2002 — the Court of First Instance (First
                                                                            Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, H. Legal and
                                                                            M.E. Martins Ribero, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
in Case T-154/02: Villiger Söhne GmbH v Council of the
                                                                            on 23 April 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                        European Union (1)
                                                                            1)    The application is rejected.
(Action for annulment — Article 3(1) and first indent of
Article 4(2) of Directive 2002/10/EC — Structure and rate
of excise duty applied on manufactured tobacco — Manifestly                 2)    The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.
                            inadmissible)
                                                                            (1) OJ 2003 C 124.
                          (2003/C 184/81)
                   (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-154/02: Villiger Söhne GmbH, established in Wald-                 Action brought on 10 April 2003 by Greenpeace Limited
shut-Tiengen (Germany), represented by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer,                and Nexgen Group Limited (trading as ECOTRICITY)
against Council of the European Union (Agents: F. Gijón and                    against the Commission of the European Communities
M. Simm) — application for annulment of Article 3(1) of
Council Directive 2002/10/EC of 12 February 2002 amending
Directives 92/79/EEC, 92/80/EEC and 95/59/EC as regards the                                            (Case T-121/03)
structure and rates of excise duty applied on manufactured
tobacco (OJ 2002 L 46, p. 26) and, in the alternative, of the                                          (2003/C 184/83)
first indent of Article 4(2) of that directive — the Court of
First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, Presi-
dent of the Chamber, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung,                                   (Language of the case: English)
Registrar, made an order on 30 April 2003, the operative part
of which is as follows:
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                         nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities on 10 April 2003 by Greenpeace
                                                                            Limited, London, United Kingdom, and Nexgen Group Limited
2.    The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                            (trading as ECOTRICITY), Gloucestershire, United Kingdom,
                                                                            represented by P. Lasok QC, Mr J. Turner and Ms R. Haynes,
3.    There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to       Barristers.
      intervene.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) OJ C 191 10.8.02.
                                                                            —     annul the Contested Decision and order the Commission
                                                                                to pay the Applicants costs.


title: Action brought on 27 December 1995 by Italian Republic against Commission of the European Communities (Case C-406/95)

text:
No C 46/ 10            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     17 . 2 . 96
preliminary ruling in the case of B. R. D. ( Bureau RIK                Action brought on 27 December 1995 by Italian Republic
DECAN-Business Research & Development ) NV v. Belgian                      against Commission of the European Communities
State on the following questions :                                                            ( Case C-406/95 )
1 . Must Article 18 ( 4 ) of the Sixth VAT Directive                                             ( 96/C 46/ 18 )
    ( 77/388/EEC ) ( J ) be interpreted as permitting a Member
    State not to refund a VAT credit from a given tax period           An action against the Commission of the European
    and not to carry it forward to a following period, but to          Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
    retain it on the ground that, and for so long as , it has a        European Communities on 27 December 1 995 by the Italian
    claim against the taxpayer in question relating to a               Republic, represented by Professor Umberto Leanza, acting
    previous tax period, if that claim is disputed by the              as Agent, assisted by Ivo M. Braguglia, Avvocato dello Stato,
    taxpayer and thus does not yet constitute a definitive             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian
    legal title, where the Member State has not received any           Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adelaide .
    authorization under Article 27 of the Sixth VAT
    Directive ?                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
2 . If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must                 — annul the Commission 's decision of 4 October 1995
    Article 18 (4 ) of the Sixth VAT Directive, in conjunction             concerning the conditions imposed on the second
    with the principle of proportionality, be interpreted as               operator of GSM radiotelephony services in Italy ('),
    permitting the Member State to provide that the
    necessity or urgency of the retention may not be                   — order the Commission to pay the costs .
    contested in any way, and that the retention may not be
    replaced in any way by a guarantee or annulled, so long            Pleas in law and main arguments
    as the disputed VAT claim has not been the
    subject-matter of a final judicial decision ?                      1 . In order to abolish the alleged disadvantage suffered by
                                                                           the second operator, Italy is obliged under the contested
(') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 .                                    decision to require that 'Telecom Italia Mobile make an
                                                                           identical payment' or to adopt, after receiving the
                                                                           agreement of the Commission, 'corrective measures
                                                                           equivalent in economic terms to the payment made by
                                                                           the second operator'.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht                  However, in the steps taken prior to the adoption of the
Munchen by decision of that court of 14 December 1995 in                   contested decision, the possibility of requiring that
the case of Bioforce GmbH v.                Oberfinanzdirektion            Telecom Italia Mobile make an identical payment —
                               Miinchen                                    considered by the Commission to be the most
                                                                           reasonable course of action — was never discussed . Such
                         ( Case C-405/95 )                                 a measure was never envisaged at that stage and the
                            ( 96/C 46/17)                                  Italian Government had no opportunity to express its
                                                                           views on the subject. That fact alone is sufficient to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     support the view that Italy's right to a fair hearing was
European Communities by a decision of the Finanzgericht                    infringed, but also in the case of the equivalent
                                                                           corrective    measures     referred   to  in  the    second
Miinchen ( Financial Court, Munich ) of 14 December 1995 ,
which was received at the Court Registry on 27 December                    subparagraph of Article 1 of the contested decision, the
1 995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bioforce GmbH              discussions were incomplete and did not ensure the right
v. Oberfinanzdirektion Miinchen on the following                           to a fair hearing.
questions :
                                                                       2 . The contested decision is predicated on the assumption
1 . Is   the    Common         Customs    Tariff  —    Combined            that the Italian Government 'has imposed an initial
    Nomenclature 1 994 — to be interpreted as meaning that                 payment for the grant of a second concession' in relation
                                                                           to GSM radiotelephony .
    products such as Echinacea Drops ( extract of echinacea
    purpurea e herba and e radice in 56,1 % alcohol by                     That assumption is incorrect. The Italian Government
    weight, for protection against colds and influenza and                 has not exacted any initial payment from tenderers
    for strengthening resistance to colds ) are to be classified           competing for the grant of a second GSM concession.
    under heading 3004 — Medicaments consisting of                         Accordingly, a national measure for the purposes of
    unmixed products for therapeutic or prophylactic uses,                 Article 90 ( 1 ) does not exist in the situation in
    put up . . . for retail sale ?                                         question.
2 . If not, is the Common Customs Tariff to be interpreted             3 . The contested decision is unlawful and should therefore
    as meaning that products such as those referred to in                   be annulled, since it is based on the speculation that the
     Question 1 are to be classified as 'other' spirituous                  first operator will abuse its dominant position, conduct
     beverages under subheading 2208 90 69 ?                               which is merely potential, not actual : it has not been
                                                                            shown that such abuse has taken place, nor is it possible
                                                                            that such abuse ever could take place .
 ---pagebreak--- 17 . 2 . 96               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 46/ 11
4 . According to the decision, GSM radiotelephony services                 Commerce ( Commercial Court), Paris, ( First Chamber A ) of
       ' should . . . probably be regarded as also constituting a          27 November 1995 , received at the Court Registry on
       market separate from the market for analogue mobile                 29 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
       telephony'. In the view of the Italian Government, that             Eurotunnel SA, France Manche SA, Eurotunnel PLC and
       conclusion is mistaken and, in any event, insufficiently            The Channel Tunnel Group Limited v. SA SNAT Nouvelle
       substantiated .                                                     d'Armement Transmanche — Voluntary interveners :
                                                                           International Duty Free Confederation , Airport Operators
5 . The contested decision is vitiated by errors of assessment             Association Limited, Cie Maritime Bretagne Angleterre
       and a defective statement of reasons .
                                                                           Irlande and Passenger Shipping Association Limited — on
                                                                           the following questions :
0 ) OJ No L 280 , 23 . 11 . 1995 , p . 49 .
                                                                           1 . Given the fact that Eurotunnel did not bring an action
                                                                                pursuant to Article 173 for the annulment of those parts
                                                                                of Council Directives 91 /680/EEC and 92/ 12/EEC
                                                                                relating to taxation (VAT and excise duty ) on
Action brought on 22 December 1995 by the Kingdom of                              cross-channel links ( J ) and that an application brought
Belgium against the Commission of the European                                    by Eurotunnel in the High Court of Justice was
                               Communities
                                                                                dismissed by decision of 17 February 1995 , will an
                           ( Case C-407/95 )                                      application for their annulment brought by Eurotunnel
                               ( 96/C 46/ 19 )                                    lie pursuant to Article 177 of the Treaty ?
An action against the Commission of the European                           2 . If so, did the Chamber adopt those directives
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                        lawfully ?
European Communities on 22 December 1995 by the
Kingdom of Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Director                          In the alternative, does Directive 94/4/EC ( 2 ) cover a
of Administration in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,                             possible annulment of those two directives ?
Foreign Trade and Development Aid, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des                    3 . In the event of annulment, must the fact that SA SNAT
Girondins .                                                                       — Nouvelle d'Armement Transmanche — applied the
                                                                                fiscal laws adopted pursuant to those directives be
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                      imputed to it as a fault ? If so, as from what date was the
                                                                                fault committed ?
annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 2358/95 on the
exceptional allocation of a quantity additional to the tariff               ( J ) Council Directive 91 /680/EEC, Article 1 ( 22 ) ( Article 28k of
quota for imports of bananas during the fourth quarter of                         Directive 77/388/EEC ) ( OJ 1991 L 376 , pp . 1 and 17 ); Council
 1995 as a result of tropical storms Iris, Luis and Marilyn ( 1 ),                Directive 92/ 12/EEC, Article 28 ( OJ 1992 L 76 , pp . 1 and
and order the Commission to pay the costs .                                       12 ).
                                                                            ( 2 ) Council Directive 94/4/EC ( OJ 1994 L 60, p . 14 ).
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
 invoked against Regulation ( EC ) No 2791 /94 in Case
 C-9/95 ( 2 ).
 (') OJ No L 241 , 10 . 10 . 1995 , p . 5 .
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
 ( 2 ) OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 , p . 9 .                                   Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen by order of that court of
                                                                            21 December 1995 in the case of Hellmut Marschall v. Land
                                                                                Nordrhein-Westfalen
                                                                                ( Case C-409/95 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 46/21 )
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
 Commerce de Paris ( First Chamber A) by judgment of that
 court of 27 November 1995 in the case of Eurotunnel SA,                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 France Manche SA, Eurotunnel PLC and the Channel                            European Communities by an order of the First Chamber of
 Tunnel Group Limited v. SA SNAT Nouvelle d'Armement                         the Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen ( Gelsenkirchen
                                                                             Administrative Court) of 21 December 1995 , which was
 Transmanche — Voluntary interveners: International Duty
 Free Confederation, Airport Operators Association                           received at the Court Registry on 29 December 1995 , for a
 Limited, Cie Maritime Bretagne Angleterre Irlande and                       preliminary ruling in the case of Hellmut Marschall v. Land
              Passenger Shipping Association Limited                         Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following question:
                             ( Case C-408/95 )                               Does Article 2(1 ) and ( 4 ) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC
                                 ( 96/C 46/20 )                              of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle
                                                                             of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     employment, vocational training and promotion, and
  European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de                        working conditions ( ] ) preclude a rule of national law under


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 January 1999 in Case T-131/96: RWE Energie Aktiengesellschaft v. Commission of the European Communities (Case not proceeding to judgment)

text:
C 86/18              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                27.3.1999
Commission's decision of 20 March 1997 refusing to take            Chamber), composed of: J.     D. Cooke, President, and R.
the measures requested by the applicant in order to ensure         García-Valdecasas and P.        Lindh, Judges; H. Jung,
collective and proportional representation in the                  Registrar, made an order       on 15 January 1999, the
membership of the Bureau of the local Staff Committee in           operative part of which is as follows:
Brussels Ð the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of: A. Potocki, President, and C. W. Bellamy
and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal                    1. There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
10 February 1999, in which it:
                                                                   2. The parties are to bear their own costs.
1. Orders the removal of the Syndicat des Fontionnaires            (1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
    Interntionaux et EuropeÂens from the list of applicants.
2. Dismisses the action brought by Mr Hecq.
                                                                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                          of 15 January 1999
                                                                   in Case T-243/97: Catherine Metdepenningen and Others
(1) OJ C 113, 11.4.1998.                                                 v. Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                   (Member of the temporary staff Ð Contract for a limited
                                                                   period Ð Possibility of its being extended Ð Action for
                                                                              annulment Ð Manifest inadmissibility)
                                                                                (1999/C 86/38)
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                         (Language of the case: French)
                     of 15 January 1999
in Case T-131/96: RWE Energie Aktiengesellschaft v.                In Case T-243/97: Catherine Metdepenningen, JeÂrôme
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                  Poussielgue and Jürgen Wettig, members of the temporary
                                                                   staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
             (Case not proceeding to judgment)                     residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas LhoeÈst, of the
                                                                   Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                       (1999/C 86/37)                              the Office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
                                                                   Cessange, v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                   (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Florence Duvieusart-
                                                                   Clotuche) Ð application, first, for annulment of the
               (Language of the case: German)                      Commission's decisions of 26 August 1996 expressly
                                                                   rejecting the requests of the applicants Metdepenningen
                                                                   and Poussielgue for an extension of their contracts as
In Case T-131/96: RWE Energie Aktiengesellschaft,                  members of the temporary staff and, second, for
established at Essen (Germany), represented by Gerhard             annulment of the Commission's decisions of 23 and
Wiedemann and Jens Fleischhauer, Rechtsanwälte,                    28 May 1997 expressly rejecting their complaints Ð the
Düsseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at           Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:
the Chambers of Luc Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume, v.               A. Potocki, President, and C. W. Bellamy and A. W. H.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                    Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
Giuliano Marenco and Klaus Wiedner), supported by                  15 January 1999, the operative part of which is as
French Republic (Agents: Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and               follows:
Jean-Marc Belorgey) Ð application, first, for a declaration
of failure to act on the part of the Commission, in that it
unlawfully failed to adopt a decision concerning the               1. The application is dismissed.
applicant's requests for negative clearance and exemption
in respect of an electricity supply agreement concluded
between the applicant and the City of Nordhorn, and,               2. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
secondly and in the alternative, for annulment of the
Commission's letter of 18 June 1996 informing the                  (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
applicant that it did not intend to consider its requests
pending the conclusion of national proceedings before the
German courts Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth


title: Case C-31/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the First Chamber of the Cour de Cassation (Belgium) by judgment of that court of 21 January 2009 in the case of Conseil National de l'Ordre des Architectes against Nicholas Dreessen

text:
C 102/14                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.4.2000
stemming from maternity insurance under the (Austrian)                      Appeal brought on 7 February 2000 by the Commission
Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz (General Law on Social                of the European Communities against the judgment deliv-
Security) (ASVG) or another (Austrian) federal law or to a                  ered on 1 December 1999 by the Second Chamber of the
maternity benefit under the (Austrian) Betriebshilfegesetz                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
exists, or existed, in respect of that child?                               Joined Cases T-125/96 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica
                                                                            GmbH and C.H. Boehringer Sohn Ltd, supported by
                                                                            Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa) and
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.                          the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
(2) OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6.                                                    Ireland, and the Council of the European Union, support-
(3) OJ 1992 L 136, p. 28.                                                   ed by Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector
                                                                            (SKV) and the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            and T-152/96 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH
                                                                            and C.H. Boehringer Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération
                                                                            Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa), and the Com-
                                                                            mission of the European Communities, supported by
                                                                            Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV)
                                                                                and the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case C-32/00 P)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the First Chamber
of the Cour de Cassation (Belgium) by judgment of that
court of 21 January 2009 in the case of Conseil National                                            (2000/C 102/24)
    de l’Ordre des Architectes against Nicholas Dreessen
                                                                            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 1 December
                           (Case C-31/00)                                   1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                            the European Communities in Joined Cases T-125/96 (1)
                                                                            Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boehringer
                          (2000/C 102/23)                                   Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération Européenne de la Santé
                                                                            Animale (Fedesa) and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                            Northern Ireland, and the Council of the European Union,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      supported by Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector
European Communities by judgment of the First Chamber of                    (SKV) and the Commission of the European Communities, and
the Cour de Cassation (Court of Cassation) (Belgium) of                     T-152/96 (2) Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and
21 January 2000, which was received at the Court Registry on                C.H. Boehringer Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération Européen-
7 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Conseil            ne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa), and the Commission of the
National de l’Ordre des Architectes against Nicholas Dreessen               European Communities, supported by Stichting Kwaliteitsga-
on the following question:                                                  rantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV) and the Council of the
                                                                            European Union, was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                            the European Communities on 7 February 2000 by the
Do Articles 5 and 52 of the Treaty of Rome mean that the                    Commission of the European Communities, represented by
competent authority of a Member State before which a                        Mr Xavier Lewis, Member of the Legal Service, acting as agent,
Community national who holds a diploma obtained in another                  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Member State makes an application for authorisation to                      Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Centre Wagner.
practise a profession to which access is, in accordance with
national legislation, subject to the possession of a diploma or
a vocational qualification, is required to take account of the              The Appellant claims that the Court should:
diploma relied upon by the applicant and to make a compari-
son between the competence and qualifications evidenced by
that diploma and the competence and qualifications required                 1. Annul that part of the judgment of the Court of First
under the national rules, even where there exists, with regard                  Instance of 1 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-125/96
to the profession in question, a directive adopted by the                       Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boeh-
Council on the basis of Article 57(1) and (2) of the Treaty, and                ringer Sohn v. Council of the European Union and
that directive provides, so far as concerns courses of study                    T-152/96 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and
started or followed during a transitional period, an exhaustive                 C.H. Boehringer Sohn v. Commission of the European
list of the diplomas or certificates, awarded in the various                    Communities which annuls Commission Regulation (EC)
Member States, enabling practice of the profession concerned                    No 1312/96 of 8 July 1996 amending Annex III of Council
in the other Member States, where the applicant falls within                    Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community
the scope of those transitional arrangements and the diploma                    procedure for the establishment of maximum residue
on which he relies is not included in that exhaustive list?                     limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of
                                                                                animal origin (OJ 1996 L 170, p. 8) in so far as it restricts
                                                                                the validity of the MRLs which it establishes for clenbuterol
                                                                                to certain specified therapeutic indications for bovines and
                                                                                equines;


title: Case C-8/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles by order of that Court of 24 December 2002 in the case of Banque Bruxelles Lambert S.A. ("BBL") against the Belgian State, Minister of Finance, Department of administration of value added tax, registration and public property

text:
C 44/18                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          22.2.2003
(b)   or, on the contrary, that the competent authority of               Or, must it be considered that the legal definition of waste
      dispatch is required to send the notification as classified        within the meaning of the abovementioned provisions applies
      by the notifier to the competent authority of destination,         only if the polluted earth has been excavated?
      while retaining the power, if it considers that the purpose
      of the shipment has been incorrectly classified, also to
                                                                         (1 ) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
      raise a reasoned objection on the basis of that erroneous          (2 ) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
      classification, at the same time or subsequently?
( 1) OJ L 30 of 6.2.1993, p. 1.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
                                                                         Première Instance de Bruxelles by order of that Court of
                                                                         24 December 2002 in the case of Banque Bruxelles
                                                                         Lambert S.A. (‘BBL’) against the Belgian State, Minister of
                                                                         Finance, Department of administration of value added
                                                                                tax, registration and public property
                                                                                (Case C-8/03)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel                                             (2003/C 44/33)
de Bruxelles, 11e Chambre, by judgment of that Court of
3 December 2002 in the case of Ministère public and the
civil party: La Région de Bruxelles-Capitale against 1. Paul             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Van de Walle, 2. Daniel Laurent, 3. Thierry Mersch and                   European Communities by order of the Tribunal de Première
            the civil defendant: SA Texaco Belgium                       Instance de Bruxelles (Regional Court, Brussels) of 24 Decem-
                                                                         ber 2002, received at the Court Registry on 10 January 2003,
                                                                         for a preliminary ruling in the case of Banque Bruxelles
                            (Case C-1/03)                                Lambert S.A. (‘BBL’) against the Belgian State, Minister of
                                                                         Finance, Department of administration of value added tax,
                                                                         registration and public property, on the following questions:
                           (2003/C 44/32)
                                                                         Are Sociétés d’investissement à capital variable [open-end
                                                                         investment companies] (SICAVs) established in a Member State
                                                                         which have as their sole object the collective investment in
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   transferable securities of capital raised from the public in
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’Appel de                  accordance with Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 Decem-
Bruxelles, 11e Chambre, (The Court of Appeal, Brussels,                  ber 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
11th Chamber) of 3 December 2002, received at the Court                  administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collec-
Registry on 3 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the              tive investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (1), taxable
case of Ministère public and the civil party: La Région de               persons for value-added-tax purposes within the meaning of
Bruxelles-Capitale against 1. Paul Van de Walle, 2. Daniel               Article 4 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
Laurent, 3. Thierry Mersch and the civil defendant: SA Texaco            1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States
Belgium on the following questions:                                      relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added
                                                                         tax: uniform basis of assessment (2), so that the services referred
                                                                         to in Article 9(2)(e) of that directive supplied to them are
                                                                         deemed to be provided at the place where the said SICAVs
Are Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July              have established their seat?
1975 (1) on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC of
18 March 1991 ( 2), which defines waste as meaning ‘any
substance or object which the holder disposes of or is required          If the answer to that question is in the negative, the resolution
to dispose of pursuant to the provisions of national law in              of the case entails determining what types of services provided
force’, and Article 1(b) and (c) of that directive which define          to the SICAVs may benefit from the exemption under
‘producer of waste’ as ‘anyone whose activities produce waste            Article 13B(d)(6) of the Sixth Directive: Is it necessary in this
(“original producer”) and/or anyone who carries out pre-                 context to distinguish between services which comprise the
processing, mixing or other operations resulting in a change             giving of assistance and management advice, on the one hand,
in the nature or composition of this waste’, and ‘holder’ as ‘the        and management services in the strict sense, on the other, the
producer of the waste or the natural or legal person who is in           latter being said to differ from the former in that they imply a
possession of it’, to be interpreted as being capable of applying        power on the manager’s part to take decisions relating to the
to a petroleum company which produces hydrocarbons and                   administration and disposal of the assets under management?
sells them to a manager operating one of its service stations
under a contract of independent management excluding                     (1 ) OJ L 375 of 31.12.1985, p. 3.
any relationship of subordination to that company, if such               (2 ) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.
hydrocarbons percolate into the ground, thus causing pol-
lution of the earth and subterranean waters?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 1 October 1998 in Case C-242/96: Italy v. Commission (EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - 1992 and 1993 - Beef and veal)

text:
21.11.98             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 358/3
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  European Communities (Agent: X. Lewis) Ð application
                       (Fifth Chamber)                               for the annulment in part of Commission Decision 96/311/
                                                                     EC of 10 April 1996 on the clearance of the accounts
                      of 1 October 1998                              presented by the Member States in respect of the
                                                                     expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section of the
in Case C-233/96: Kingdom of Denmark v. Commission
                                                                     European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
              of the European Communities (1)
                                                                     (EAGGF) and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993
(EAGGF Ð Clearance of accounts Ð 1992 and 1993 Ð                     (OJ L 117, 14.5.1996, p. 19) Ð the Court (Fifth
                        Beef and veal)                               Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
                                                                     Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de
                         (98/C 358/05)                               Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber,
                                                                     Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 October 1998, in
               (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                     which it:
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                    1. Dismisses the application;
In Case C-233/96: Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: P.
                                                                     2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
Biering) v. Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: H. P. Hartvig) Ð application for the annulment in
part of Commission Decision 96/311/EC of 10 April 1996               (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member
States in respect of the expenditure for 1992 of the
Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance
and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and in respect of certain
expenditure for 1993 (OJ L 117, 14.5.1996, p. 19) Ð the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón,                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,                                             (Fifth Chamber)
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
1 October 1998, in which it:                                                               of 1 October 1998
                                                                               in Case C-242/96: Italy v. Commission (1)
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                     (EAGGF Ð Clearance of accounts Ð 1992 and 1993 Ð
                                                                                Beef and veal)
2. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.
                                                                                (98/C 358/07)
(1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           published in the European Court Reports)
                       (Fifth Chamber)
                      of 1 October 1998                              In Case C-242/96: Italian Republic (Agents: U. Leanza
in Case C-238/96: Ireland v. Commission of the European              and M. Fiorilli) v. Commission of the European
                       Communities (1)                               Communities (Agents: E. de March and P. Ziotti) Ð
                                                                     application for the annulment in part of Commission
(EAGGF Ð Clearance of accounts Ð 1992 and 1993 Ð                     Decision 96/311/EC of 10 April 1996 on the clearance of
                        Beef and veal)                               the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of
                                                                     the expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section of the
                         (98/C 358/06)
                                                                     European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
                                                                     (EAGGF) and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993
               (Language of the case: English)                       (OJ L 117, 14.5.1996, p. 19) Ð the Court (Fifth
                                                                     Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
                                                                     Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de
In Case 238/96: Ireland (Agent: M. A. Buckley, assisted by           Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber,
M. Finlay, SC, and D. Barniville) v. Commission of the               Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
 ---pagebreak--- C 358/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.11.98
Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 October 1998, the                         hire, provided that the tariffs are fixed with due
operative part of which is at follows:                                    regard for the public-interest criteria defined by Law
                                                                          No 298 and the public authorities do not hand over
                                                                          their prerogatives to private economic agents in taking
1. The application is dismissed;                                          into account, before the approval of proposals, of the
                                                                          observations of other public and private bodies and
                                                                          even by fixing tariffs ex officio.
2. The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.                                             2. The concept of general interest to which the Court
                                                                          referred in its judgments in Case C-185/91 Reiff
                                                                          and in Case C-153/93 Delta Schiffahrts- und
                                                                          Speditionsgesellschaft corresponds to the concept of
                                                                          public interest mentioned in its judgment in Case
                                                                          C-96/94 Centro Servizi Spediporto.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                     3. It is for the Member States to determine the specific
                      (Second Chamber)                                    criteria to be used in fixing tariffs, such as those in
                      of 1 October 1998                                   force under Italian law, and for the national courts to
                                                                          determine whether the criteria thus defined are
in Case C-38/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  respected in practice.
the Giudice di Pace di Genova): Autotrasporti Librandi
Snc di Librandi F. & C. v. Cuttica Spedizioni e Servizi
                     Internazionali Srl (1)                          4. The fact that collective agreements such as those
                                                                          provided for in Article 13 of the Ministerial Decree of
(Competition Ð Road transport Ð Mandatory tariff Ð
                                                                          18 November 1982 can be concluded and that they
State legislation Ð Concepts of general interest and public
                                                                          are even enforceable under national law against
                           interest)
                                                                          operators who have not signed them does not have the
                        (98/C 358/08)                                     effect of restricting competition within the meaning of
                                                                          Article 85 of the Treaty.
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-38/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Giudice di Pace di Genova                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Magistrate's Court, Genoa) (Italy), for a preliminary                                        (Sixth Chamber)
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Autotrasporti Librandi Snc di Librandi F. & C.                                      of 1 October 1998
and Cuttica Spedizioni e Servizi Internazionali Srl Ð on                    in Case C-71/97: Commission of the European
the interpretation of Article 3(f) and (g), and Articles 5, 85                    Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (1)
and 86 of the EC Treaty and of the concepts of general
interest' and collective agreement' Ð the Court (Second             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),                                    Failure to transpose a directive)
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and G.
                                                                                (98/C 358/09)
Hirsch, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
1 October 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
1. Article 3(f) and (g), and Articles 5, 85, 86 and 90 of
     the EC Treaty do not preclude legislation of a Member             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     State which provides for road-haulage tariffs to be                       published in the European Court Reports)
     approved and brought into force by the State on the
     basis of proposals of a central committee the majority
     of whose members are representatives of the economic            In Case C-71/97: Commission of the European
     agents concerned and which extends the mandatory                Communities (Agent: Fernando Castillo de la Torre) v.
     tariffs applicable in the field of contracts for the            Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde) Ð
     carriage of goods by road to other types of contracts,          application for a declaration that, first, by failing to
     relating to different services, such as, in particular,         designate the zones considered to be vulnerable and to
     contracts under invitations to tender and contracts for         notify the Commission of those designations and, second,