title: Judgment of the Court of 26 September 2000 in Case C-478/98: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Loans issued abroad — Prohibition of acquisition by Belgian residents)

text:
C 335/12                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        25.11.2000
de Palma de Mallorca, Spain, for a preliminary ruling in                     23 March 1994 materially amending for the second time
the proceedings pending before that court between Bärbel                     Directive 83/189/EEC (OJ 1994 L 100, p. 30) — the Court,
Kachelmann and Bankhaus Hermann Lampe KG — on the                            composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, L. Sevón and
interpretation of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC               R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn,
of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of                 C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, H. Ragnemalm,
equal treatment for men and women as regards access to                       M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
employment, vocational training and promotion, and working                   General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 September 2000, in
composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,                        which it has ruled:
L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and
M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,                A national court is required, in civil proceedings between individuals
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                    concerning contractual rights and obligations, to refuse to apply a
26 September 2000, on which it ruled:                                        national technical regulation which was adopted during a period of
                                                                             postponement of adoption prescribed in Article 9 of Council
Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of                    Directive 83/189/EEC laying down a procedure for the provision of
9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal              information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as
treatment for men and women as regards access to employment,                 amended by Directive 94/10/EC of the European Parliament and
vocational training and promotion, and working conditions must be            the Council of 23 March 1994 materially amending for the second
interpreted as not precluding an interpretation of a national rule,          time Directive 83/189.
such as that contained in Article 1(3) of the Kündigungsschutzgesetz
in the version in force until 30 September 1996, which proceeds on
the general basis that part-time workers are not to be compared with         (1) OJ C 33 of 6.2.1999.
full-time workers when an employer has to proceed to selection on the
basis of social criteria when abolishing a part-time job on economic
grounds.
(1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 26 September 2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      in Case C-478/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                        of 26 September 2000
                                                                             (Loans issued abroad — Prohibition of acquisition by Belgian
                                                                                residents)
in Case C-443/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Pretore di Milano (Italy)): Unilever Italia SpA v Central
                              Food SpA (1)                                                             (2000/C 335/23)
(Technical standards and regulations — Obligations of
notification and postponement of adoption — Applicability                                        (Language of the case: French)
                          in civil proceedings)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                            (2000/C 335/22)
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)                        In Case C-478/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: H. Michard and B. Mongin v Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                             (Agent: A. Snoecx, assisted by B. van de Walle de Ghelcke) —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       application for a declaration that, by prohibiting the acquisition
                     in the European Court Reports)                          by persons resident in Belgium of securities of a loan issued
                                                                             abroad, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
In Case C-443/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                obligations under Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretore di Milano                56 EC) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
(Magistrate, Milan) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings              President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón
pending before that court between Unilever Italia SpA and                    and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn
Central Food SpA — on the interpretation of Council Directive                (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet,
83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for                      P. Jann, and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
the provision of information in the field of technical standards             General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
and regulations (OJ 1983 L 109, p. 8), as amended by Directive               the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 September 2000, in
94/10/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of                       which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 25.11.2000              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 335/13
1.    Declares that, by prohibiting the acquisition by persons resident                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      in Belgium of securities of a loan issued abroad, under the
      second paragraph of Article 3 of the Royal Decree of 4 October
      1994, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                                         of 26 September 2000
      obligations under Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56
      EC);                                                                  in Case C-23/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Free
                                                                            movement of goods — Procedures for detention under
                                                                            customs control — Goods in transit — Industrial property
                                                                                right — Spare parts for the repair of motor vehicles)
                                                                                (2000/C 335/25)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                         (Language of the case: French)
                      of 26 September 2000
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in Case C-22/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                         in the European Court Reports)
the Pretura di Pinerolo): Cristoforo Bertinetto v Biraghi
                               SpA (1)
                                                                            In Case C-23/99: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agents: R.B. Wainwright and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French
(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —                         Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Loosli-Surrans) —
Milk and milk products — Milk-price — Article 3 of                          application for a declaration that, by implementing, pursuant
                  Regulation (EEC) No 804/68)                               to the French Code de ]a Propriété Intellectuelle, procedures
                                                                            for the detention by the customs authorities of goods lawfully
                          (2000/C 335/24)                                   manufactured in a Member State of the European Community
                                                                            which are intended, following their transit through French
                                                                            territory, to be placed on the market in another Member State
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                         where they may be lawfully marketed, the French Republic has
                                                                            failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) — the Court, composed
                   in the European Court Reports)                           of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida
                                                                            and L. Sevón (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn,
In Case C-22/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretura di                      M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
Pinerolo (Magistrate’s Court, Pinerolo), Italy for a preliminary            General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                 the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 September 2000, in
Cristoforo Bertinetto and Biraghi SpA — on the interpretation               which it:
of Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the Council of
27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in                    1.    Declares that, by implementing, pursuant to the French Code
milk and milk products (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(1),                      de la Propriété Intellectuelle, procedures for the detention by the
p. 176) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                                 customs authorities of goods lawfully manufactured in a
D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón, P. Jann,                      Member State of the European Community which are intended,
H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;                                following their transit through French territory, to be placed on
S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                        the market in another Member State where they may be lawfully
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                         marketed, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
26 September 2000, in which it has ruled:                                         under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                                Article 28 EC);
Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June
1968 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk              2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
products precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the
main proceedings, which is designed to promote and encourage the
establishment of a uniform producer price for milk.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 April 2005 in Case T-211/03 Faber Chimica Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Application for figurative mark Faber — Opposition of the proprietor of the national word and figurative marks NABER — Refusal of registration)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 20 April 2005
   in Case T-211/03 Faber Chimica Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for figurative mark Faber - Opposition of the proprietor of the national word and figurative marks NABER - Refusal of registration)
   (2005/C 155/30)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-211/03: Faber Chimica Srl, established in Fabriano (Italy), represented by P. Tartuferi and M. Andreano, lawyers, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: M. Capostagno and O. Montalto), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM being Industrias Quimicas Naber, SA Nabersa, established in Valencia (Spain) — action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 March 2003 (Case R 620/2001-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Faber Chimica Srl and Industrias Quimicas Naber, SA Nabersa — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 March 2003 (Case R 620/2001-4) in so far as it upholds the opposition of the proprietor of the Spanish word mark NABER;

               2.

               Orders the defendant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 23.8.2003.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 February 2001 in Case C-238/00 P: Peter Reichert v European Parliament (Officials — Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Expatriation allowance — Place where the main professional activity is pursued — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
C 200/34                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
parties to the proceedings being Council of the European                   1.    The appeal is dismissed.
Union (Agents: J. Carbery and G. Ramos Ruano), Commission
of the European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and                       2.    Mr Peter Reichert is ordered to pay the costs.
J. Guerra Fernández), Asociación Nacional de Armadores de
Buques Congeladores de Pesca de Merluza (Anamer), estab-                   (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
lished in Vigo, Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Buques
Congeladores de Pesquerı́as Varias (Anavar), established in
Vigo, and Asociación de Sociedades Pesqueras Españolas
(ASPE), established in Vigo — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
composed of A. La Pergola, President of Chamber,
D.A.O. Edward, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an
order on 1 February 2001, the operative part of which is as                       ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
follows:
                                                                                of 23 February 2001
1.    The appeal is dismissed.
2.    Area Cova and Others shall pay the costs.                            in Case C-445/00 R: Republic of Austria v Council of the
                                                                                European Union (1)
(1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
                                                                           (Applications for interim measures — System of ecopoints
                                                                           for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria —
                                                                           Regulation (EC) No 2012/2000 — Suspension of application
                                                                                — Urgency)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/62)
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                          (First Chamber)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                        of 8 February 2001                                                     in the European Court Reports)
in Case C-238/00 P: Peter Reichert v European Parlia-                      In Case C-445/00 R: Republic of Austria (Agent: H. Dossi) v
                               ment (1)                                    Council of the European Union (Agents: A. Lopes Sabino and
                                                                           G. Houttuin), supported by Federal Republic of Germany
(Officials — Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations               (Agent: W.-D. Plessing, assisted by J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig)
— Expatriation allowance — Place where the main pro-                       and by Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
fessional activity is pursued — Appeal manifestly                          M. Wolfcarius and C. Schmidt) — application for suspension
                             unfounded)                                    of application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2000 of
                                                                           21 September 2000 amending Annex 4 to Protocol No 9 to
                          (2001/C 200/61)                                  the 1994 Act of Accession and Regulation (EC) No 3298/94
                                                                           with regard to the system of ecopoints for heavy goods
                                                                           vehicles transiting through Austria (OJ 2000 L 241, p. 18),
                   (Language of the case: German)                          and for interim measures — the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice made an order on 23 February 2001, the operative part
                                                                           of which is as follows:
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                           1.    The application of Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EC)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                No 2012/2000 of 21 September 2000 amending Annex 4
                                                                                to Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of Accession and Regulation
In Case 238/00 P: Peter Reichert, member of the temporary                        (EC) No 3298/94 with regard to the system of ecopoints for
staff of the Socialist Group of the European Parliament,                         heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria is suspended
represented by D. Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt — appeal against the                     pending delivery of the judgment in the main proceedings.
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities, Single Judge, of 13 April 2000, in Case T-18/98               2.    The remainder of this application is dismissed.
Reichert v Parliament [2000] ECR II-309, seeking to have that
                                                                           3.    Costs are reserved.
judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
European Parliament (Agents: Y. Pantalis and M. Berger) — the
Court (First Chamber), composed of M. Wathelet, President of               (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; P. Leger,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on
18 February 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case T-302/16: Action brought on 10 June 2016 — Bay v Parliament

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/40

         Action brought on 10 June 2016 — Bay v Parliament
   (Case T-302/16)
   (2016/C 279/55)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Nicolas Bay (La Celle-Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: A. Cuignache, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   in limine litis,

               —

               annul the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 9 March 2016;

               —

               annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 11 April 2016;
               in substance,

               —

               withdraw the penalty imposed by the decision of 11 April 2016.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: irregularities of internal procedure and invalidity of the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 9 March 2016 and the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 11 April 2016, imposing on the applicant the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance for a period of 5 days. The first contested decision undermines the right to good administration and the principle of equality of arms. The second contested decision undermines the right to have ones affairs handled impartially and fairly by the institutions and bodies of the European Union and the right to a fair trial.

               2.

               Second plea in law: lack of material evidence which could demonstrate the allegations against the applicant and, in particular, the applicant’s use of another Member of the European Parliament’s voting card.

               3.

               Third plea in law: inconsistency and inadmissibility of the testimonies on which the penalty imposed on the applicant is based.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: the physical impossibility of the applicant voting in the place of another Member of the European Parliament.


13 . 4 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 108/ 13
      Removal from the register of Case T-444/93 ( )                       Removal from the register of Case T-107/95 ( )
                          ( 96/C 108/27                                                        ( 96/C 108 /30 )
                (Language of tbe case: Dutch)                                       (Language of tbe case: English)
By order of 13 February 1996 the President of the Fourth
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First               By order of 12 February 1996 the President of the First
Instance of the European Communities ordered the                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
removal from the register of Case T-444/93 : Stichting               Communities ordered the removal from the register of
Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor het Glazenwassers- en                     Case T-l 07/95 : Benjamin Laurence Lay v . Council of
Schoonmaakbedrijf ( Fondation Bedrijfspensioenfonds du               the European Union and Commission of the European
Secteur des Entreprises de Lavage de Vitres et de Nettoyage )        Communities .
v . Council of the European Union and Commission of the
European Communities .                                               (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
(') OJ No C 24 , 31 . 1 . 1992 .
      Removal from the register of Case T-355/94 ( 1 )                     Removal from the register of Case T-l 08/95 (')
                          ( 96/C 108/28 )                                                      ( 96/C 108 /31 )
              (Language of the case: English)                                       (Language of tbe case: English)
By order of 16 February 1 996 the President of the Third             By order of 12 February 1996 the President of the First
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
from the register of Case T-355/94 : Norsk Hydro A/S v .
                                                                     T-l 08/95 : Donald George Gage and David John Gage v.
Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                     Council of the European Union and Commission of the
(') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                   European Communities .
                                                                     (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
        Removal from the register of Case T-83/95 ( ] )
                          ( 96/C 108/29 )
               (Language of the case: English)                             Removal from the register of Case T-182/95 (')
                                                                                96/C 108/32 )
By order of 29 January 1996 the President of the Fifth
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal                             (Language of the case: French)
from the register of Case T-83/95 : Associaçâo dos
Refinadores de Açucar Portugueses ( ARAP ), Alcantara                By order of 7 February 1996 the President of the Second
Refiniarias — Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açucar               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Reunidas SA v . Commission of the European                           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Communities .
                                                                     T- 1 82/95 : Champing Qualité France v . Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities .
(>) OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 315 , 25 . 11 . 1995 .


title: Case F-139/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2012 — BJ v Commission

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/42

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2012 — BJ v Commission
   (Case F-139/11) (1)

   2012/C 287/79
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.12, p. 25.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 1996 in Case C-334/94: Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic (Failure of a State to fulfil obligations - Registration of vessels - Right to fly the French flag - Nationality requirements for owner and crew - Failure to comply with the judgment in Case 167/73)

text:
1 . 6 . 96               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 158/ 1
                                                                     I
                                                              (Information)
                                                 COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                           COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member
                          ( Sixth Chamber )                                 State after having been employed in that State ( OJ,
                                                                            English Special Edition 1970 ( II ), p . 402 ) and Article 7 of
                          of 7 March 1996                                   Council Directive 75/34/EEC of 17 December 1974
in     Case   C-334/94: Commission of the European                          concerning the right of nationals of a Member State to
              Communities v . French Republic (')                           remain in the territory of another Member State after
(Failure of a State to fulfil obligations — Registration of                 having pursued therein an activity in a self-employed
vessels — Right to fly the French flag — Nationality                        capacity ( OJ 1975 L 14 , p . 10 ), and
requirements for owner and crew — Failure to comply with
                   the judgment in Case 167/73)                         — by not taking the appropriate measures to comply with
                             ( 96/C 158/01 )                                the judgment of 4 April 1974 in Case 167/73
                                                                            Commission v. France [ 1974 ] ECR 349 ,
                  (Language of the case: Frencb)                        the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                        Article 171 of the EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),
                                                                        composed of: C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), President of the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                        Chamber, G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, J. L. Murray
           published in the European Court Reports)                     and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; N. Fennelly; Advocate-General;
                                                                        R. Grass , Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 March 1996 , in
                                                                        which it :
In Case C-334/94 : Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : Gérard Rozet and Xavier Lewis ) v.
French Republic ( Agents : Edwige Belliard and Hubert
                                                                        1 . Declares that, by retaining in force laws, regulations and
Renié ) application for a declaration that
                                                                            administrative provisions restricting the right to register
                                                                            a vessel in the national register and to fly the national
— by retaining in force laws, regulations and                               flag, to vessels more than half the shares in which are
     administrative provisions restricting the right to register             owned by natural persons of French nationality, legal
     a vessel in the national register and to fly the national              persons having a seat in France, legal persons a certain
     flag to vessels more than half the shares in which are                 proportion of whose directors, administrators or
     owned by natural persons of French nationality, legal                   managers must be French nationals or, in the case of a
     persons having a seat in France , legal persons a certain              private limited company, limited partnership, or general
     proportion of whose directors, administrators or                        commercial or non-commercial partnership , more than
     managers must be French nationals or, in the case of a                  half of whose capital must be held by French citizens or
     private limited company, limited partnership, or general                all of whose capital must be held by French persons who
     commercial or non-commercial partnership, more than                    fulfil certain conditions, the French Republic has failed
     half of whose capital must be held by French citizens or                to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6 , 48, 52 , 58 and
     all of whose capital must be held by French persons who                 221 of the EC Treaty, Article 7 of Commission
     fulfil certain conditions, the French Republic has failed               Regulation (EEC) No 1251 /70 of 29 June 1970 on the
     to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6 , 48 , 52, 58 and            right of workers to remain in the territory of a
     221 of the EC Treaty, Article 7 of Commission                           Member State after having been employed in that State
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 1251 /70 of 29 June 1970 on the                   and Article 7 of Council Directive 75/34/EEC of
 ---pagebreak--- No C 158/2          | EN 1                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       1 . 6 . 96
     1 7 December 1 974 concerning the right ofnationals ofa            The legislation concerns fishing boats but can equally be
     Member State to remain in the territory of another                 applied to commercial and pleasure boats which are used as
     Member State after having pursued therein an activity in           a means of pursuing an economic activity .
     a self-employed capacity.
                                                                       With regard to boats which are not used as a means of
                                                                       pursuing an economic activity but for recreational purposes,
2 . Declares that, by not taking the appropriate measures to
                                                                       the Commission considers that the requirements for their
     comply with the judgment of 4 April 1974 in Case
                                                                       registration under Greek legislation are contrary to
     167/73 Commission v. France [1974] ECR 359, the
                                                                       Articles 6 , 48 and 52 of the Treaty and to Article 7 of
     French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1251 /70 and Article 7 of Council
     Article 171 of the EC Treaty.                                     Directive 75/34/EEC, inasmuch as workers within the
                                                                       meaning of Article 48 , or professional people within the
3 . Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                       meaning of Article 52, should receive the same treatment as
                                                                       nationals, both as regards the exercise of their activity and as
                                                                       regards the conditions of their residence in the State in
(') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                     question .
                                                                       The Commission considers that the right to register a vessel
                                                                       in the national registers of shipping and to fly the flag of the
                                                                       State in question may contribute to the absorption of a
                                                                       person into the host country and, consequently, to the
                                                                       realization of the aim of freedom of movement for persons
                                                                       within the meaning of Articles 48 and 52 of the Treaty .
Action brought on 7 March 1996 by the Commission of the
   European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                        ( Case C-62/96 )                               C ) OJ, English Special Edition 1970 ( II ), p . 402 .
                                                                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 14, 20 . 1 . 1975 , p . 10 .
                          ( 96/C 158/02 )
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice on 7 March 1996 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Frank Benuon,
Legal Adviser to the Commission's Legal Service and Maria
Condou-Durande of its Legal Service, with an address for              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlo Gomez de la              Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto — Second Chamber
Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner                  — by order of that court of 14 December 1995 in the case of
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                    David Petrie, Robert Hill and David John Newbold v.
                                                                      Université degli Studi di Verona, and in the presence of
                                                                                Camilla Bettoni
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                                ( Case C-90/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 158 /03 )
— declare that, by maintaining in force legal provisions
    which restrict the right to registration in the Greek
    registers of shipping to vessels owned as to a percentage         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    over 50 % by Greek nationals or by Greek legal persons            European Communities by an order of the Tribunale
    whose capital is owned as to the same percentage by               Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto ( Regional
    Greek nationals, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil       Administrative Court for the Veneto ) — Second Chamber
    its obligations under Articles 6 , 48 , 52, 58 and 221 of the     — of 14 December 1995 , which was received at the Court
    EEC Treaty, Article 7 of Commission Regulation ( EEC )            Registry on 21 March 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
    No 1251 /70 of 29 June 1970 ( J ) and Article 7 of Council        case of David Petrie, Robert Hill and David John Newbold
    Directive 75/34/EEC of 17 December 1974 ( 2 );                    against Université degli Studi di Verona (Verona
                                                                      University ), in the presence of Camilla Bettoni, on :
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                      whether Articles 5 and 48 of the EEC Treaty and Articles 1
                                                                      and 3 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 ( 1 ) of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        15 October 1968 have to be interpreted as precluding a
                                                                      Member Srate's legislation from restricting the possibility of
The requirements laid down by Greek legislation for the               obtaining course-teaching appointments and temporary
registration of vessels in the Greek registers of shipping are        university teaching posts to specific categories, such as those
similar to those examined by the Court of Justice in Cases            provided for under Italian legislation, within a framework
C-221/89 Factortame [ 1991 ] ECR 3905 and C-246/89                    of legislation and administrative practice of the kind that
Commission v. United Kingdom [ 1991 ] ECR 1-4585 . The                exists in Italy, rather than providing that foreign-language
Court held that requirements of that kind are contrary to             university assistants with an employment relationship for an
Articles 6 , 52, 58 and 221 of the Treaty.                            indeterminate period with an Italian university are also


title: Case T-253/99: Action brought on 25 October 1999 by Oliehandel Van den Belt B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 6/34                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8.1.2000
Action brought on 22 October 1999 by Gebr. Jongste B.V.                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        (a) declare the application admissible;
                         (Case T-249/99)                                (b) annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
                                                                             of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
                          (2000/C 6/60)                                      Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
                                                                             Germany;
                                                                        (c) order the Commission to pay the costs.
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               Pleas in law and main arguments
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 October 1999 by Gebr. Jongste                This case is linked to Case T-210/99. The applicant pleads,
B.V., of Ouderkerk aan den Ijssel (Netherlands), represented by         inter alia, infringement of the principle of the protection of
R. van Gelder, of the Voorschoten Bar.                                  legitimate expectations and claims that the reasons for the
                                                                        decision are incomprehensible, since it has passed the subsidy
                                                                        on to its customers, who are therefore the real recipients
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             thereof.
(a) annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
     of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the                (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
     Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
     Germany, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant;
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Action brought on 26 October 1999 by Tankstation Jagt
                                                                        B.V. against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
T-210/99.                                                                                (Case T-259/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 6/62)
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 26 October 1999 by Tankstation
                                                                        Jagt B.V., of Coevorden (Netherlands), represented by
                                                                        J.J.L.M. Johanninck, of the Coevorden Bar.
Action brought on 25 October 1999 by Oliehandel Van
den Belt B.V. against the Commission of the European
                          Communities                                   The applicant claims that the Court should annul the Com-
                                                                        mission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1) of 20 July 1999
                                                                        concerning State aid granted by the Netherlands to 633 service
                         (Case T-253/99)                                stations in the region bordering Germany, in so far as it
                                                                        concerns the applicant.
                          (2000/C 6/61)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
                                                                        T-210/99.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
European Communities on 25 October 1999 by Oliehandel
Van den Belt B.V., of Drachten (Netherlands), represented by
J.F. Verwilligen, of the Drachten Bar.


title: Case F-89/08: Action brought on 3 November 2008 — P v Parliament

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/74

         Action brought on 3 November 2008 — P v Parliament
   (Case F-89/08)
   (2009/C 44/132)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: P (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the Parliament's decision to dismiss the applicant with three months' notice and also a claim for damages.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the Parliament's decision of 15 April 2008 to dismiss the applicant with three months' notice and immediately to deny him access to the Parliament, ordering him to return his office keys as soon as possible;

               —

               in consequence, reinstatement of the applicant forthwith in his duties, in the post and at the grade that were his at the time of the decision of 15 April 2008, with retroactive effect, and payment of his salary from 15 July 2008 until the date of his actual reinstatement, with default interest at the rate of 7 % per annum;

               —

               an order that the defendant should pay, by way of compensation for non-material damage and prejudice to his career, the sum of EUR 10 000, subject to any increase and/or decrease during the proceedings;

               —

               an order that the European Parliament should pay the costs.


title: Joined Cases C-274/11 and C-295/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 April 2013 — Kingdom of Spain and Italian Republic v Council of the European Union (Unitary patent — Decision authorising enhanced cooperation under Article 329(1) TFEU — Actions for annulment on grounds of lack of competence, misuse of powers and infringement of the Treaties — Conditions laid down in Article 20 TEU and in Articles 326 TFEU and 327 TFEU — Non-exclusive competence — Decision adopted ‘as a last resort’ — Preserving the interests of the Union)

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 April 2013 — Kingdom of Spain and Italian Republic v Council of the European Union
   (Joined Cases C-274/11 and C-295/11) (1)

   (Unitary patent - Decision authorising enhanced cooperation under Article 329(1) TFEU - Actions for annulment on grounds of lack of competence, misuse of powers and infringement of the Treaties - Conditions laid down in Article 20 TEU and in Articles 326 TFEU and 327 TFEU - Non-exclusive competence - Decision adopted ‘as a last resort’ - Preserving the interests of the Union)
   2013/C 164/05
   Language of the case: Spanish and Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, assisted by S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

      Intervener in support of Kingdom of Spain: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, assisted by S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

      Intervener in support of Italian Republic: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially by T. Middleton, F. Florindo Gijón and A. Lo Monaco, and subsequently by T. Middleton, F. Florindo Gijón, M. Balta and K. Pellinghelli, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, J.-C. Halleux and T. Materne, Agents), Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, D. Hadroušek and J. Vláčil, Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Kemper, Agents), Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent, assisted by N.J. Travers, BL), French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and A. Adam, Agents), Hungary, represented by: M. Z. Fehér and K. Molnár, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and M. de Ree, Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, E. Gromnicka and M. Laszuk, Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and C. Meyer-Seitz, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Seeboruth, Agent, assisted by T. Mitcheson, Barrister), European Parliament (represented by: I. Díez Parra, G. Ricci and M. Dean, Agents), European Commission, (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral, T. van Rijn, B. Smulders, F. Bulst and L. Prete, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Council Decision 2011/167/EU of 10 March 2011 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 53) Misuse of powers — Failure to respect the judicial system of the European Union

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union in Case C-274/11;

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union in Case C-295/11;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, the French Republic, the Republic of Latvia, Hungary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Polish Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the European Parliament and the European Commission to pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.

      OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: Case C-37/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge der Nederlanden by judgment of 5 January 1999 in the criminal proceedings against R. Donkersteeg

text:
1.5.1999                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 121/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondisse-                               nationals and who are pursuing their studies in the
mentsrechtbank te Amsterdam by judgment of that court                                 Netherlands?
of 28 January 1999 in the case of H. Fahmi (Case No AKW                      2. Must Article 48 or Article 52 of the EEC Treaty
97/5082/24) and M. M. Esmoris Cerdeiro-Pinedo Amado
                                                                                be interpreted as meaning that the restriction of
(Case No AKW 97/7018/24) against Bestuur van de Sociale
                                                                                entitlement to receive from the national authorities a
                        Verzekeringsbank
                                                                                contribution to the cost of maintaining student chil-
                                                                                dren aged 18 or over results, for nationals of Member
                          (Case C-33/99)                                          States other than the Netherlands who move to the
                                                                                Netherlands or for the children of such nationals, in
                                                                                an obstacle to freedom of movement for workers,
                         (1999/C 121/16)                                          alternatively to freedom of establishment, which is
                                                                                such as to render that restriction incompatible with
                                                                                those Articles or either of them?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Arrondissements-
                                                                         (1) OJ L 28, 30.1.1997, p. 1 (consolidated version).
rechtbank te Amsterdam (Amsterdam District Court) of 28 Jan-             (2) OJ, English special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.
uary 1999, receveid at the Court Registry on 8 February 1999,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of H. Fahmi and M. M.
Esmoris Cerdeiro-Pinedo Amado against Bestuur van de Sociale
Verzekeringsbank on the following questions:
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
— In the case of H. Fahmi (Case No AKW 97/5082/24):                      Nederlanden by judgment of 5 January 1999 in the
                                                                                criminal proceedings against R. Donkersteeg
    1. a) Must Article 41(1) of the Cooperation Agreement
            be interpreted as meaning that a Moroccan worker                                        (Case C-37/99)
            may rely on the prohibition of discrimination laid
            down in that provision if he no longer resides on                                      (1999/C 121/17)
            the territory of a Member State of the European
            Community?                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by judgment of 5 January 1999 by
                                                                         the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the
        b) If so, does Article 41(3) of the Cooperation Agree-           Netherlands), which was received at the Court Registry on
             ment preclude reliance on Article 41(1) thereof by          10 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
             a Moroccan worker whose children reside outside             proceedings against R. Donkersteeg on the following ques-
             the Community?                                              tions:
    2. If a worker such as the first plaintiff may rely on the           1. Is Article 1 of Council Directive 83/189/EEC (1) to be
        prohibition of discrimination laid down in Article                   interpreted as meaning that the provision in Article 2(1) of
        41 (1) of the Cooperation Agreement, does that                       the Verordening Minimumeisen Varkesnhouderij 1993
        prohibition have the effect of rendering the abolition               (1993 Regulation on the minimum requirements for pig
        of the entitlement to receive child allowance imper-                 keeping) referred to under heading 4, which states that:
        missible if the effect of that abolition is such that                The operator is required to ensure that one or more proper
        that right is replaced by an entitlement to receive a                disinfectant containers or appropriate cleaning facilities for
        contribution to (inter alia) the cost of maintaining                 disinfecting footwear are present on his holding, must be
        student children aged 18 or over which far more                      regarded as a technical regulation within the meaning of
        frequently benefits Netherlands nationals or persons                 that Directive?
        insured under the AKW who reside in the Netherlands              2. Is Article 1 of Directive 83/189/EEC to be interpreted as
        than workers such as the first plaintiff?                            meaning that the provision in Article 2(1) of the Verorde-
                                                                             ning Bestrijding Ziekte van Aujeszky 1993 (1993 Regu-
— In the case of M. M. Esmoris Cerdeiro-Pinedo Amado (Case                   lation on the combating of Aujeszky’s disease) referred to
    No AKW 97/7018/24):                                                      under heading 8, which states that: Every operator is
                                                                             required to have pigs present on his holding vaccinated
    1. a) Does Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No                      against Aujeszky’s disease in accordance with the vacci-
            1408/71 (1), or any other provision of that Regu-                nation scheme set up for the animal species concerned
            lation, preclude the abolition of the right to child             and the individual areas by the Afdeling (pig breeding
            allowance for student children over the age of 18 if             department) on the recommendation of the Stichting
            eligibility for the entitlement which replaces that              (veterinary care association), must be regarded as a techni-
            right is in principle enjoyed only by students who               cal regulation within the meaning of that Directive?
            are Netherlands nationals and who are pursuing               3. Where a draft technical regulation within the meaning
            their studies in the Netherlands?                                of Directive 83/189/EEC is not communicated to the
                                                                             Commission pursuant to Articles 8 and 9 of that Directive,
        b) Must Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)                     does that render such a regulation inapplicable to the
             No 1612/68 (2) be interpreted as precluding the                 extent to which it constitutes a barrier to trade or the free
             abolition of the right to child allowance for student           movement of goods in a particular case, or should it be
             children over the age of 18 if eligibility for the              ruled that such a provision cannot be applied where the
             entitlement which replaces that right is in principle           regulation constitutes, or may constitute, a barrier to trade
             enjoyed only by students who are Netherlands                    in general irrespective of the particular case?
 ---pagebreak--- C 121/10               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.5.1999
4. If the second question is to be answered in the affirmative,                compatible with Articles 73b and 52 of the EC Treaty,
     does the fact that in December 1995 the Netherlands                       such a procedure must be justified by overriding consider-
     programme for combating Aujeszky’s disease in pigs was                    ations in the public interest and based on criteria which
     approved by the European Commission for 1996 have any                     are objective, fixed and public, so that the discretion
     bearing on the question whether Article 2(1) of the                       enjoyed by the national authorities is reduced to a
     Veordening Bestrijding Ziekte van Aujeszky is applicable                  minimum.
     to the present case? If so, what bearing does it have?
                                                                           c) In the context of the privatisation of ENI and Telecom
(1) Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a                Italia, the Commission maintains that the introduction of
    procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical       special powers is not justified. The Italian authorities
    standards and regulations (OJ L 109, 26.4.1983, p. 8).                     should have been able to meet their needs with order
                                                                               provisions which did not involve the compulsory limi-
                                                                               tation of property rights and were accordingly less restric-
                                                                               tive of the freedoms at issue.
Action brought on 19 February 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                          (Case C-58/99)
                                                                           Action brought on 19 February 1999 by the Commission
                         (1999/C 121/18)                                   of the European Communities against 1. Manuel Pereira
                                                                           Roldão & Filhos, Lda.; 2. Instituto Superior Técnico; and
                                                                                3. King, Taudevin & Gregson (Holdings) Ltd
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 February
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                                                 (Case C-59/99)
represented by Antonio Aresu and Maria Patakia of its Legal
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                                          (1999/C 121/19)
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                         An action against 1. Manuel Pereira Roldão & Filhos, Lda.; 2.
                                                                           Instituto Superior Técnico; and 3. King, Taudevin & Gregson
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                (Holdings) Ltd was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                           the European Communities on 19 February 1999 by the
— declare that, by adopting Articles 1(5) and 2 of the                     Commission of the European Communities, represented by
     consolidated text of Decree Law No 332 of 31 May 1994,                Francisco de Sousa Fialho, of its Legal Service, and by Olivier
     converted with amendments into Law No 474 of 30 July                  Couvert-Castéra, a national civil servant on secondment to its
     1994, and the decrees concerning certain special powers               Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
     in relation to the privatisation of ENI and Telecom Italia,           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under       Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
     Articles 52, 59 and 73b of the EC Treaty;
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceed-              The applicant claims that the Court should order the defend-
     ings.                                                                 ants to pay EUR 357 813, together with EUR 185 833,78 by
                                                                           way of interest until 1 January 1999, plus any interest accrued
                                                                           until full repayment is actually made; and the costs of these
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        proceedings.
a) The sentence in Article 1(5) of the consolidated text which
     provides that certain work may be undertaken only by                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     individual professionals who have been registered as
     provided for by statute for at least five years is incompatible       This action has been brought under Article 181 of the EC
     with Articles 59 and 52 of the EC Treaty, in so far as it             Treaty seeking repayment of money paid in advence under a
     unlawfully excludes any professional legally operating in             contract in terms of which the European Community under-
     other Member States or whose establishment in Italy took              took to give financial assistance to the first applicant to enable
     place recently.                                                       him to install a low-cost, moderate pollution tank for the
                                                                           melting of lead crystal, as part of the promotion of energy
                                                                           technology in Europe (thermie programme) provided for by
b) Article 2 of the consolidated text, which confers special               Council Regulation (EEC) No 2008/90 (1). That contract was
     powers on the Treasury Minister, places a restriction on              terminated by the applicant on the ground of breach of
     freedom of movement for persons and on the right of                   contract by the defendants.
     establishment.
     The procedure for the authorisation of significant share              (1) OJ L 185, 17.7.1990, p. 1.
     purchases by investors and of agreements between share-
     holders gives the national authorities a power to discrimi-
     nate which they may use arbitrarily. In order to be


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 27 November 1997 in Case C-27/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Länsrätten i Jönköpings Län): Danisco Sugar AB v. Allmänna Ombudet (Accession of the Kingdom of Sweden - Agriculture - Sugar - National levy on sugar stocks)

text:
20.2.98             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 55/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar
                                                                     sector (OJ L 177, 1.7.1981, p. 4), and Commission
                      (Fifth Chamber)                                Regulation (EC) No 3300/94 of 21 December 1994 laying
                                                                     down transitional measures in the sugar sector following
                  of 27 November 1997
                                                                     the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden (OJ L 341,
in Case C-27/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling by               30.12.1994, p. 39) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber)
the Länsrätten i Jönköpings Län): Danisco Sugar AB v.                composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the First Chamber,
                  Allmänna Ombudet (1)                               acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, J. C. Moitinho
                                                                     de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón,
(Accession of the Kingdom of Sweden Ð Agriculture Ð                  (Rapporteur), Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General;
          Sugar Ð National levy on sugar stocks)                     H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                     27 November 1997, the operative part of which is as
                        (98/C 55/01)                                 follows:
              (Language of the case: Swedish)
                                                                     Articles 137(2) and 145(2) of the Act concerning the
                                                                     conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Norway, the
                                                                     Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the
                                                                     Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        on which the European Union is founded, Articles 39 and
        published in the European Court Reports)                     40 of the EC Treaty, Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/
                                                                     81 of 30 June 1981 on the common organisation of the
                                                                     markets in the sugar sector and Commission Regulation
                                                                     (EC) No 3300/94 of 21 December 1994 laying down
In Case C-27/96: reference to the Court under Article 177            transitional measures in the sugar sector following the
of the EC Treaty by the Länsrätten i Jönköpings Län                  accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden do not preclude
(Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                 a State acceding to the European Union from adopting, on
pending before that court between Danisco Sugar AB and               the eve of its accession, legislation introducing a levy on
Allmänna Ombudet, on the interpretation of Articles                  sugar being then held in stock within that State.
137(2), 145(2) and 149(1) of the Act concerning the
conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Norway, the
Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the                 (1) OJ C 95, 30.3.1996.
Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties
on which the European Union is founded (OJ C 241,
29.8.1994, p. 21), Articles 39 and 40 of the EC Treaty,
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981


title: Action brought on 21 June 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-211/96)

text:
14 . 9 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 269/3
Action brought on 19 June 1996 by the United Kingdom                            effect therefore it amounts to a penalty, for which there
   against the Commission of the European Communities                           are no express vires.
                         ( Case C-209/96 )
                           ( 96/C 269/06 )                              (') Commission Decision 96/31 1 /EC of 10 April 1996 on the
                                                                              clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in
                                                                              respect of the expenditure for 1 992 of the Guarantee Section of
                                                                              the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and
An action against the Commission of the European                              in respect of certain expenditure for 1993 ( OI No L 117, 14 . 5 .
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                    1996 , p. 19 ).
European Communities on 19 June 1996 by the United                      ( 2 ) Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 2456/93 of 1 September
                                                                              1993 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council
Kingdom, represented by John E. Collins , Assistant                           Regulation ( EEC ) No 805/68 as regards the general and special
Treasury Solicitor, acting as Agent, assisted by Gerald                       intervention measures for beef ( OJ No L 225 , 4 . 9 . 1993 ,
Barling QC and Helen Davies , of the English Bar, with an                     p. 4 ).
address for service in Luxembourg at the British Embassy,               ( ! ) Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/89 of 29 March 1989
14 boulevard Roosevelt .                                                      laying down detailed rules for the application of intervention
                                                                              measures in the beef and veal sector ( OJ No L 91 , 4 . 4 . 1989 ,
                                                                              p. 5 ).
The applicant requests :
— the annulment of the decision ( ) to disallow the sum of
      £ 3 356 000 in respect of the United Kingdom 's
      expenditure for 1992 of. the Guarantee Section of
      the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee                  Action brought on 21 June 1996 by the Commission of the
      Fund,                                                                  European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-211 /96 )
— an order that the Commission pay the applicant's costs                                              ( 96/C 269/07 )
      of these proceedings .
                                                                        An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     21 June 1996 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by Maria Kontou-Durande, of
                                                                        its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                        at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, also of the
The applicant submits that the decision to make the
disallowance is unlawful for the following reasons :                    Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
( a ) the approach adopted by the Commission in relation to
       the disallowance was fundamentally flawed in that, in
       contrast to its successor ( 2 ), the Regulation ( 3 ) did not    — declare that, by failing to adopt, within the period
       require the Member States to take steps to ensure                       prescribed, the laws, regulations or administrative
       that connected offers were not accepted , and the                       provisions necessary to comply with Commission
       Commission was wrong as a matter of law to have so                      Directive 93/27/EEC (') of 4 June 1993 amending
       concluded;                                                              Council Directive 70/524/EEC ( 2 ) concerning additives
                                                                               in feedingstuffs, the Hellenic Republic is in breach of its
                                                                               obligations under the Treaty and that Directive,
( b ) in any event, there is no or no sufficient reasoning to
       support the Commission 's conclusions that the practice          — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
       of connected offers either allowed the manipulation by
       tenderers of the intervention procedures or led to a
       higher level of intervention by the national authorities,        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       contrary to Article 190 of the Treaty, and such
       conclusions are erroneous in fact . There is moreover no         Under paragraph 3 of Article 189 of the Treaty establishing
       justification for concluding that the practices in               the European Community, a directive is to be binding, as to
       question were liable to lead to that result;                     the result to be achieved , upon each Member State to which
                                                                        it is addressed . Under the first paragraph of Article 5 of the
                                                                        Treaty, the Member States are to take all appropriate
( c ) the imposition of a flat rate disallowance of 2% in               measures, whether general or particular, to ensure
       respect of the accounts of all the Member States is              fulfilment of the obligations arising out the Treaty or
       clearly not related in amount to any loss which is said to       resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
       have been occasioned by the practices identified . In            Community .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 269/4                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           14 . 9 . 96
The period prescribed for the transposition of the Directive              for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4 rue des
in question into national law expired on 31 March 1994 ,                  Girondins .
but the Hellenic Republic has not yet adopted the measures
necessary to incorporate it fully into the Greek legal system,            The applicant claims that the Court should :
nor notified the Commission of any such measures .
                                                                          — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 822/96 of
(') OJ No L 179 , 22 . 7 . 1993 , p . 5 .                                        3 May 1996 on the exceptional allocation of a quantity
( 2 ) Official Journal , English Special Edition 1970 ( III ), p. 840 .          additional to the tariff quota for imports of bananas
                                                                                during the second quarter of 1996 as a result of tropical
                                                                                storms Iris , Luis and Marilyn ('),
                                                                          — order the Commission to pay the costs .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
Administratif, Saint-Denis de la Reunion, by judgment of                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
that court of 5 June 1996 in the case of Paul
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
     Chevassus-Marche v. Conseil Regional de la Reunion                   in Case C-407/95 ( 2 ).
                           ( Case C-212/96 )
                              ( 96/C 269/08 )                             (') OJ No L 111 , 4 . 5 . 1996 , p . 7 .
                                                                          ( 2 ) OJ No C 46 , 17 . 2 . 1996 , p . 11 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal
Administratif ( Administrative Court ), Saint-Denis de la
Reunion , of 5 June 1996 , which was received at the Court
Registry on 25 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Paul Chevassus-Marche against Conseil Regional de
                                                                          Action brought on 26 June 1996 by the Commission of the
la Reunion on the following questions :
                                                                           European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                                Case C-218/96 )
 1 . Is Council Decision 8 9/6 8 8/EEC ( 1 ) authorizing the                                           ( 96/C 269/ 10 )
       maintenance of dock dues payable on imported
       products and on goods produced by undertakings                     An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
       located in an overseas departement consistent with the
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
       Treaty and , specifically, with Articles 9 , 12 and 13             26 June 1996 by the Commission of the European
       thereof, in that it allows the possibility of exemptions for
                                                                          Communities , represented by Gotz zur Hausen, acting as
       local undertakings on the sole condition that they
                                                                          Agent, assisted by J. -J. Evrard, Avocat, with an address for
       contribute to the promotion or maintenance of an                   service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
       economic activity ?
                                                                          Cruz, of the Commission 's Legal Service , Wagner Centre ,
2 . If so , may Decision 89/688/EEC be regarded , in the light            Kirchberg.
       of the second paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty of
       Rome , as permitting fiscal differentiation with a view to         The applicant claims that the Court should :
       achieving economic objectives which are consistent with
       the requirements of the Treaty and of secondary                    — declare that, by not adopting the laws , regulations and
       legislation, where such differentiation is justified by the               administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       particular economic conditions in the overseas                            Commission Directive 93/ 105/EC (') of 25 November
       departements ?                                                            1 993 laying down Annex VII D , containing information
                                                                                required for the technical dossier referred to in Article 12
                                                                                of the     seventh    amendment       of Council     Directive
 (') OJ No L 399 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 46 .
                                                                                67/548/EEC (2 ), or by not communicating those
                                                                                measures, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under that Directive ,
                                                                          — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
 Action brought on 26 June 1 996 by the Kingdom of Belgium
     against the Commission of the European Communities                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                            ( Case C-2 17/96 )
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
                               ( 96/C 269/09 )                             in Case C-205/96 ( 3 ); the period prescribed by the Directive
                                                                           expired on 31 December 1993 .
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                (') OJ No L 294 , 30 . 11 . 1993 , p . 21 .
 European Communities on 26 June 1996 by the Kingdom of                    ( 2 ) Official Journal , English Special Edition 1967, p. 234 .
 Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Adviseur-Generaal in                 (') OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 , p . 7 .
 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs , External Trade and
 Development Cooperation , acting as Agent, with an address


title: Action brought on 22 December 1995 by Alberto Castagnoli against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-239/95)

text:
No C 64/22           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    2 . 3 . 96
    whatsoever, precisely because they are not paid in any         Italian Republic, with an address for service in Luxembourg
    other currency. The second concerns the fourth                 at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias
    subparagraph of Article 82, which refers to the pensions       Hardt .
    which are to be paid in a currency other than Belgian
    francs and provides for a conversion operation only in
    this context .
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                   — annul the applicant's pension statements as from
                                                                       January 1995 on the grounds set forth in the
                                                                       application,
Action brought on 22 December 1995 by Alberto                      — order the Commission to pay the amounts due in their
Castagnoli against the Commission of the European                      entirety, together with interest at 8 % calculated from
                         Communities                                   the dates on which they fell due,
                      ( Case T-239/95 )
                         ( 96/C 64/41 )                            — order the defendant to pay the costs of the
                                                                       proceedings.
               (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
An action against the Commission of the European                   in Case T-238/95 Francesco Mongelli v. Commission.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 22 December
1995 by Alberto Castagnoli, a former official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Segrate ( Milan ), represented by Giuseppe Marchesini,
advocate with the right of audience before the Corte di
Cassazione of the Italian Republic, with an address for            Action brought on 22 December 1995 by Vittorio Sadini
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,              against the Commission of the European Communities
8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt .                                                                ( Case T-241/95 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 64/43 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the applicant's pension statements as from                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
    January 1995 on the grounds set forth in the
    application,                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
— order the Commission to pay the amounts due in their             Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 22 December
    entirety, together with interest at 8 % calculated from
    the dates on which they fell due,                              1995 by Vittorio Sadini, a former official of the Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities , residing in Segrate ( Milan ),
— order the defendant to pay the costs of the                      represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, advocate with the
    proceedings .                                                  right of audience before the Corte di Cassazione of the
                                                                   Italian Republic, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                   at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those         Hardt .
in Case T-238/95 Francesco Mongelli v. Commission .
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   — annul the applicant's pension statements as from
                                                                       January 1995 on the grounds set forth in the
Action brought on 22 December 1995 by Eduardo Capuano                  application,
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                      ( Case T-240/95 )                            — order the Commission to pay the amounts due in their
                         ( 96/C 64/42 )                                entirety, together with interest at 8 % calculated from
                                                                       the dates on which they fell due,
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   — order the defendant to pay the costs of the
An action against the Commission of the European                        proceedings .
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 22 December                The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
1995 by Eduardo Capuano, a former official of the                  in Case T-238/95 Francesco Mongelli v. Commission.
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Rome, represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, advocate with
the right of audience before the Corte di Cassazione of the


title: Joined Cases T-60/06 RENV II and T-62/06 RENV II: Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — Italy and Eurallumina v Commission (State aid — Directive 92/81/EEC — Excise duties on mineral oils — Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Exemption from excise — Selective nature of the measure — Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market — Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection — Guidelines on national regional aid 1998 — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Principle lex specialis derogat legi generali — Principles of presumption of legality and of the effet utile of acts of the institutions — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — Italy and Eurallumina v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-60/06 RENV II and T-62/06 RENV II) (1)

   ((State aid - Directive 92/81/EEC - Excise duties on mineral oils - Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production - Exemption from excise - Selective nature of the measure - Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market - Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection - Guidelines on national regional aid 1998 - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Principle lex specialis derogat legi generali - Principles of presumption of legality and of the effet utile of acts of the institutions - Principle of sound administration - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 200/26)
   Languages of the case: Italian and English

      Parties

      Applicants: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and G. Aiello, avvocato dello Stato), and Eurallumina SpA (Portoscuso, Italy) (represented by: L. Martin Alegi, R. Denton, A. Stratakis and L. Philippou, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, N. Khan, G. Conte, D. Grespan and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12), to the extent that it concerns the existence of State aid granted by the Italian Republic, between 3 February 2002 and 31 December 2003, on the basis of the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Sardinia (Italy) and that it orders the Italian Republic to recover that aid.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs in Cases T-60/06, T-60/06 RENV I and T-60/06 RENV II and to bear its own costs and pay one fifth of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P;

               3.

               Orders Eurallumina SpA to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases T-62/06, T-62/06 RENV I and T-62/06 RENV II and three twentieths of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs in Cases T-62/06, T-62/06 RENV I and T-62/06 RENV II and one fifth of its own costs in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.