title: Case C-468/02: Action brought on 31 December 2002 by Kingdom of Spain against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 55/12               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              8.3.2003
—    If the applicant country has itself for a long time accepted         —      Lawful production and marketing of feta outside the area
     and benefited from the generic use of the designation, it                   of origin take place in a number of Member States and
     will have forfeited any right to argue that the designation                 non-member countries.
     is non-generic.
                                                                          —      Danish production and marketing of feta are in no wise
                                                                                contrary to fair custom and practice, nor do they give rise
—    Registration as a designation of origin at Community                        to any genuine risk of confusion, precisely because
     level is excluded if a designation is a generic designation                 Danish legislation has, since as far back as 1963, required
     in even only one Member State.                                              that such feta be designated as ‘dansk feta’.
                                                                          —      The Community legislature, including the Commission,
                                                                                has, in a number of legal provisions and measures,
—    Lawful production and marketing over a long period of
                                                                                proceeded on the basis that ‘feta’ is a generic designation.
     time in other Member States are central factors in the
     evaluation of a generic designation. Lawful marketing of
     this kind may be suppressed only if it is contrary to fair
     custom and practice or gives rise to a genuine risk of               (Alternative)
     confusion.
                                                                          The Commission adopted Regulation No 1829/2002 in con-
                                                                          travention of the basic regulation inasmuch as feta does not
—    Lawful production in non-member countries and their                  satisfy the conditions governing registration as a traditional
     trade with the EU also argue in favour of treating a                 non-geographical name laid down in Article 2(3) of the basic
     designation as being covered by the prohibition of                   regulation.
     registration of generic designations, inter alia in the light
     of the Community’s obligations under the WTO.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 277 of 15.10.2002, p. 10.
                                                                          (2 ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on
                                                                               the registration of geographical indications and designations of
—    There is a presumption that non-geographical indications                  origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
     are generic designations, in particular where an indication               Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ L 148 of 21.6.1996, p. 1).
     is derived from a language other than that of the applicant          (3 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
     country.                                                                  protection of geographical indications and designations of origin
                                                                               for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992,
                                                                               p. 1).
—    The applicant country and, secondly, the Commission
     have the onus of establishing that a non-geographical
     indication is not a generic designation and that lawful
     marketing over a long period in other countries is
     contrary to fair custom and practice and gives rise to a
     genuine risk of confusion.
                                                                          Action brought on 31 December 2002 by Kingdom of
                                                                          Spain against Commission of the European Communities
Denmark attaches particular importance to the following
specific factors:                                                                                (Case C-468/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/21)
—    Whether as a designation or a product, feta does not
     have its origin specifically in Greece. The traditional
     consumption and production area covers a number of
     Balkan lands, including several non-member countries                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     due shortly to join the EU.                                          ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                          Communities on 31 December 2002 by the Kingdom of
                                                                          Spain, represented by Lourdes Fraguas Gadea, Abogado del
                                                                          Estado, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
—    Up until 15 years ago, Greece itself imported, produced,             Luxembourg.
     consumed and exported feta, including feta made from
     cow’s milk. Consumers in Greece must, for a number of
     years, have regarded the designation as being generic.               The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          1.     annul Decision 2002/881/EC (1) so far as concern the
—    In other countries, both within and outwith the EU, in                      financial corrections imposed on the Kingdom of Spain
     which it is consumed and produced in large quantities,
     consumers also regard feta as being a generic designation.           2.     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 8.3.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 55/13
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Appeal brought on 23 December 2002 by the European
                                                                             Broadcasting Union (EBU) against the judgment delivered
                                                                             on 8 October 2002 by the Second Chamber, Extended
                                                                             Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
(Public storage        of olive oil, financial correction of                 pean Communities in Joined Cases T-185/00, T-216/00,
EUR 37 621,55)                                                               T-299/00 and T-300/00 between Métropole télévision SA
                                                                             (M6), Antena 3 de Televisión, SA, Gestevisión Telecinco,
                                                                             SA, SIC-Sociedade Independente de Communicação, SA,
The successful tenderer fulfilled its obligation to communicate              supported by Deutsches SportFernsehen GmbH (DSF)
its refusal to take over the lot, informing and notifying the                and Reti Televisive Italiane Spa (RTI) and Commission
Commission thereof in fulfilment of its obligation under                     of the European Communities, supported by European
Article 10 of Regulation No 561/99 ( 2).                                     Broadcasting Union (EBU) and Radiotelevisión Española
                                                                                (RTVE)
Secondly, return of the securities did not result in any loss to
the Community budget since the oil in question continued to                                         (Case C-470/02 P)
form part of the intervention stock, subject to that body of
rules and available to cover future operations, just as if refusal
had been communicated by the successful tenderer directly to                                          (2003/C 55/22)
the Commission.
                                                                             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 October 2002
(Areas harvested for pasture by the paying agency of Castile                 by the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court
and Leon, financial correction of EUR 1 229 951,00)                          of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined
                                                                             Cases T-185/00, T-216/00, T-299/00 and T-300/00 between
                                                                             Métropole télévision SA (M6), Antena 3 de Televisión, SA,
The corrections relating to the 1998 and 1999 harvests are                   Gestevisión Telecinco, SA, SIC-Sociedade Independente de
the result of applying 2 % to the result of dividing the total               Communicação, SA, supported by Deutsches SportFernsehen
declared area in cases where the discrepancies detected during               GmbH (DSF) and Reti Televisive Italiane Spa (RTI) and
administrative checks were in excess of 3 % or 2 hectares into               Commission of the European Communities, supported by
the total declared area.                                                     European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and Radiotelevisión
                                                                             Española (RTVE) was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                             the European Communities on 23 December 2002 by the
Spain does not agree with the Commission on the proposed                     European Broadcasting Union (EBU), represented by D. Wael-
financial correction because, first, Community legislation (3)               broeck and M. Johnsson, lawyers.
does not mean that the results of the administrative checks
should be included in the risk analysis when selecting the
checks to be made on the spot and, secondly, handling of the
applications for ‘area’ aid makes it impossible to carry out all             The appellant claims that the Court should:
the administrative checks before on-the-spot checks are carried
out.                                                                         —     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                                the European Communities of 8 October 2002 in Joined
                                                                                Cases T-185/00, T-216/00, T-299/00 and T-300/00,
Nonetheless, in the Autonomous Community of Castile and                            Métropole Télévision and Others v Commission;
Leon cases in which irregularities have been detected in
the administrative checks carried out the previous year are
systematically included as a risk criterion when selecting the               —     send the case back to the Court of First Instance so that it
sample of cases for on-the-spot checks.                                            may rule on the other pleas in law raised by the applicants
                                                                                on which it has not yet ruled;
( 1) Commission Decision 2002/881/EC of 5 November 2002 exclud-              —     reserve the costs.
     ing from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by
     the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European
     Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), OJ 2002 L
     306, p. 26.
( 2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 561/1999 of 15 March 1999 on              Pleas in law and main arguments
     the opening of a standing invitation to tender for the sale of olive
     oil held by the Spanish intervention agency, OJ L 69, 16.1.1999,
     p. 13.
( 3) Article 6(4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of               By basing its reasoning on arguments that were not raised by
     23 December 1992, OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36.                                 the applicants, the Court of First Instance has ruled ultra petita
                                                                             and infringed the rights of the defence of the EBU and of the
                                                                             Commission. The decisive element for the Court of First
                                                                             Instance is the application of the sub-licensing scheme for ‘live


20 . 7 . 96              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                            No C 210/ 11
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                     Removal from the register of Case C-174/94 ( 1 )
Verwaltungsgericht Kôln by order of that court of 8 May                                             ( 96/C 210/26 )
1996     in   the     case     of  Richard   Buchen        GmbH     v.
                       Bezirksregierung Köln
                           ( Case C-193/96 )                            By order of 19 March 1 996 , the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                             ( 96/C 210/25 )
                                                                        from the register of Case C-l 74/94 : French Republic v.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Commission of the European Communities, supported by
                                                                        United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland .
European Communities by an order of the Fourth Chamber
of the Verwaltungsgericht Kôln ( Administrative Court,
Cologne ) of 8 May 1996 , which was received at the Court               ( i ) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
Registry on 6 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Richard Buchen GmbH v . Bezirksregierung Kôln on the
following questions :
1 . Do shipments of waste destined for recovery, within
     Annex III to Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 259/93 of
     1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of
     shipments of waste within, into and out of the European                    Removal from the register of Case C-99/95 (')
     Community ( 1 ), require the express or tacit consent of
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/27)
     the competent authority of dispatch, in accordance with
     Chapter B of the Regulation ?
2 . If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative : if that         By order of 29 April 1996 , the President of the Court of
     authority raises objections, does it thereby at the same          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
     time refuse consent or defer a decision ?                          from the register of Case C-99/95 : ( Reference for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden ):
3 . If the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are in the negative :           Saueressig GmbH & Co . v . Forbo-Krommenie BV.
     where the competent authority of destination has raised
     no objections or has consented to the shipment, may
                                                                        (') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
     the waste be shipped after the period specified in
     Article 7 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 259/93 has passed,
     notwithstanding the objections raised by the competent
     authority of dispatch, if a legal remedy brought against
     the objections has suspensive effect under national
     law ?
4 . May the shipment of the waste referred to in Question 1
     be effected, despite the objections raised by the                         Removal from the register of Case C-3 50/95 (')
     competent authority of dispatch, if the competent                                              ( 96/C 210/28 )
     authority of destination has stamped the consignment
     note , even if the basis of the objections is that the waste
    will not be recovered but disposed of ( objection under             By order of 15 April 1996 , the President of the Court of
     the first or fifth indent of Article 7 ( 4 ) ( a ) of Regulation  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
     ( EEC ) No 259/93 )?                                               from the register of Case C-350/95 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg.
(') OJ No L 30 , 6 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .


title: Case C-125/02: Action brought on 5 April 2002 by European Parliament against HDI International (HDI)

text:
15.6.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 144/19
2.    order RSA to pay damages amounting to                               Action brought on 5 April 2002 by European Parliament
      EUR 40 781 286 for 2001 and to EUR 9 409 701 for                                       against AIG Europe (AIG)
      2002 to offset the expenditure incurred by the Parliament
      in respect of additional insurance cover to replace the
      guarantees wrongfully terminated by the defendant and                                       (Case C-124/02)
      all other connected expenditure, together with interest
      calculated at the legal rate of interest, it being understood                               (2002/C 144/31)
      that all accidents occurring during 2002 will be declared
      to RSA on the basis of the policies wrongfully terminated;
                                                                          An action against AIG Europe (AIG) was brought before the
3.    order the defendant to pay the costs.                               Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 April 2002
                                                                          by the European Parliament, represented by D. Petersheim,
                                                                          O. Caisou-Rousseau and M. Ecker, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          1.    declare null and void the terminations of guarantee
This action has been brought before the Court on the basis of                   notified by AIG on 8 October and 5 November 2001;
an arbitration clause in an insurance contract covering build-
ings and contents of the European Parliament located in                   2.    order AIG to pay damages amounting to EUR 181 852,93
Luxembourg, Strasbourg, Brussels and in a number of other                       for 2001 and to EUR 44 556,84 for 2002 to offset the
towns and cities (where the European Parliament has infor-                      expenditure incurred by the Parliament in respect of
mation offices).                                                                additional insurance cover to replace the guarantees
                                                                                wrongfully terminated by the defendant and all other
                                                                                connected expenditure, together with interest calculated
                                                                                at the legal rate of interest, it being understood that all
The parties are in dispute over the validity of the termination                 accidents occurring during 2002 will be declared to AIG
concerning, on the one hand, ‘labour dispute/terrorist acts’ risk               on the basis of the policies wrongfully terminated;
cover and, on the other, the remaining guarantees (fire and
connected risks).                                                         3.    order the defendant to pay the costs.
The European Parliament takes the view that the special                   Pleas in law and main arguments
conditions of the contract replace the general conditions relied
on by the defendant. Moreover, for buildings in France,
Article 42 of the general conditions cannot justify termination           The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
with notice of less than the 6 months provided for in the                 forward in Case C-123/02.
standard guarantees. Since French legislation makes cover for
standard risks undetachable from the risk of ‘labour dispute/
terrorist attacks’, that article cannot justify termination with
notice of less than 6 months for property in France. Likewise,
since there is no provision for notice of 7 days under
Luxembourg law, which strictly forbids terminations which it
does not expressly provide for, such notice is unlawful with
respect to buildings in Luxembourg. In so far as the defendants
invoke the general conditions to claim that the risk has become           Action brought on 5 April 2002 by European Parliament
more serious for reasons outwith the control of the insured                              against HDI International (HDI)
party, the relevant terminations are tardy, since they disregard
the period of one month following notice of the event giving                                      (Case C-125/02)
rise to the aggravated circumstances.
                                                                                (2002/C 144/32)
Contractual liability for failure to perform the insurance
contract is based on the law of the Member States where the
insured property is located.                                              An action against HDI International (HDI) was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 April
                                                                          2002 by the European Parliament, represented by D. Peters-
                                                                          heim, O. Caisou-Rousseau and M. Ecker, acting as Agents, with
                                                                          an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/20               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        15.6.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
                                                                                its obligations under that directive, in particular Article 27
1.    declare null and void the terminations of guarantee                       thereof;
      notified by HDI on 30 October and 13 and 20 November
      2001;                                                               —     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
2.    order HDI to pay damages amounting to EUR 44 556,84
      to offset the expenditure incurred by the Parliament in
      respect of additional insurance cover to replace the                Pleas in law and main arguments
      guarantees wrongfully terminated by the defendant and
      all other connected expenditure, together with interest
      calculated at the legal rate of interest, it being understood       The time-limit for transposition, extended by one year on
      that all accidents occurring during 2002 will be declared           account of the specific characteristics of Belgium’s electricity
      to HDI on the basis of the policies wrongfully terminated;          network, expired on 19 February 2000, but Belgium has not
                                                                          adopted all the requisite measures, particularly as regards the
                                                                          appointment of the network manager (as provided for in
3.    order the defendant to pay the costs.                               Article 10 of the Belgian Law on the organisation of the
                                                                          electricity market).
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           (1) OJ L 27 of 30.1.1997, p. 20.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case C-123/02.
                                                                          Appeal brought on 8 April 2002 by Bernhard Schulte
                                                                          against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2002 by the
                                                                          Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities in Case T-261/94 between
                                                                          Bernhard Schulte and the Council of the European Union
                                                                              and the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 8 April 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                             Belgium                                                              (Case C-128/02 P)
                         (Case C-126/02)                                                           (2002/C 144/34)
                         (2002/C 144/33)
                                                                          An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2002
                                                                          by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities in Case T-261/94 between Bernhard
                                                                          Schulte and the Council of the European Union and the
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before               Commission of the European Communities (1) was brought
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       8 April 2002 by Bernhard Schulte, represented by Reinhard
represented by R. Tricot, acting as Agent, with an address for            Freise, Rechtsanwalt and Notar, Salzkotten.
service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                         —     set aside the judgment under appeal;
—     declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations         —     order the respondents to pay the appellant compensation,
      and administrative measures necessary in order to comply                  quantified by him to be at least DEM 30 000, plus interest
      with Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament                        of 5 % per annum from 1 December 1989, for the
      and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning                         damage suffered by him as a result of the unlawful refusal
      common rules for the internal market in electricity (1), or               to grant him the reference delivery quantities for which
      at any rate by failing to communicate the same to the                     he applied.


title: Case T-188/01: Action brought on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios Tsarnavas against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 317/30               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.11.2001
Action brought on 8 August 2001 by Nicole Robert                         European Communities on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios
                 against European Parliament                             Tsarnavas, resident in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
                                                                         lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (Case T-186/01)
                         (2001/C 317/58)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: French)                        —     annul the decision adopted by the Commission on
                                                                               21 September 2000 in that it decides that the applicant’s
An action against the European Parliament was brought before                   name should not be included on the list of grade A5
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                     officials considered the most deserving of promotion
8 August 2001 by Nicole Robert, of Strassen, Luxembourg,                       under the 1998 promotions procedure and, as a result,
represented by Alain Lorang, lawyer, with an address for                       that the applicant should not be promoted to grade A4
service in Luxembourg.                                                         under the 1998 promotions procedure;
                                                                         —     in so far as necessary, annul the Commission’s implied
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    decision rejecting the complaint submitted by the appli-
—     annul the decisions taken by the Director-General of                     cant on 27 December 2000 under Article 90(2) of the
                                                                               Staff Regulations;
      Personnel on 26 November 1999 promoting certain
      other officials from grade B2 to grade B1, in that they
      were reached without opening or publishing vacant posts            —     consequently annul the 1998 A4 promotions procedure
      for principal assistants and with an incorrect comparison                with regard to the applicant;
      of the merits;
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay all the costs of the action.
—     annul the decision of 23 May 2001 by which the President
      of the European Parliament rejected her complaint of
      29 February 2000;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         In support of his action, the applicant alleges a lack of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          reasoning in the contested decision, breach of Articles 26, 43
                                                                         and 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the principles of equal
                                                                         treatment and sound administration and a manifest error of
The applicant, an official in grade B 2 at the Parliament,               assessment.
contests the Parliament’s decision not to include her amongst
the officials actually promoted by decision of the Director-
General of Personnel of 26 November 1999.
She alleges that the promotion system in force at the Parlia-
ment and the method used in order to apply it are unlawful.
She submits that the Parliament adopted a decision contrary
                                                                         Action brought on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios Tsarnavas
to Articles 4, 5, 7, second paragraph, 9 and 45 and Annex 1
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
to the Staff Regulations. Moreover, because of the procedure
adopted by the Parliament, seniority prevails over merit,
contrary to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, which can lead                                   (Case T-190/01)
to discrimination against officials who have obtained very high
marks in their staff reports in comparison with those who                                        (2001/C 317/60)
have obtained lower marks in their reports.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Action brought on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios Tsarnavas                   European Communities on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     Tsarnavas, resident in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
                                                                         lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (Case T-188/01)
                         (2001/C 317/59)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: French)                        —     annul the Commission decision of 29 September 2000
                                                                               not to uphold the appeal lodged by the applicant
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      contesting the list of names put forward for promotion
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     to grade A4 under the 2000 promotions procedure in


title: Case C-151/04: Referencefor a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Police, Neufchâteau (Belgium)by judgment of that court of 16 January 2004 inthe case Ministère public against

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/45

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Police, Neufchâteau (Belgium) by judgment of that court of 16 January 2004 in the case Ministère public against
   (Case C-151/04)
   (2004/C 106/78)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de Police (local criminal court), Neufchâteau (Belgium) of 16 January 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 25 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministère public against Claude Nadin - third party to the proceedings: Nadin-Lux SA.
   The Tribunal de Police, Neufchâteau (Belgium) asks the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following question:
   Do Articles 10, 39, 43 and 49 of the EEC Treaty preclude a Member State from adopting a measure requiring a worker who is resident within its territory to register his vehicle there even when that vehicle belongs to his employer, a company established in another Member State and to which that worker is linked by an employment contract but in which at the same time he occupies a the position of shareholder, director, day-to-day manager or similar?


title: Case T-101/99: Action brought on 27 April 1999 by Adolfo Kind against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 204/38               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       17.7.1999
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 8 April 1999 by Euro-Lex European                     Action brought on 27 April 1999 by Adolfo Kind against
Law Expertise GmbH against the Office for Harminisation                        the Commission of the European Communities
      in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs)
                                                                                (Case T-101/99)
                         (Case T-79/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/95)
                        (1999/C 204/94)                                                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                  (Language of the Case: German)                        European Communities on 27 April 1999 by Adolfo Kind,
                                                                        represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar, with
                                                                        an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
An action against the Office for Harminisation in the Internal          Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
Market (trade marks and designs) was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
1999 by Euro-Lex European Law Expertise GmbH, Emmerich
(FRG), represented by Eckhard Benkelberg, Rechtsanwalt, of
Benkelberg & Kollegen. Steinstraße 10, Emmerich.                        — annul the decision of the Luxembourg Claims Office of the
                                                                             Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of 13 October 1998;
                                                                        — order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the contested decision, in so far as it dismisses the           Pleas in law and main arguments
    appeal (point 3 of the operative part of the decision), and
    thereby also annul the decision rejecting the application of        The applicant, a former Commission official, challenges the
    20 May 1998 in so far as it rejects the application for             Luxembourg Claims Office’s refusal to authorise auxiliary
    registration of the trade mark under class 42 services;             medical treatment in hospital of one of his sons, made
                                                                        necessary by his mental condition.
— in the alternative, order oral proceedings to be held.
                                                                        In support of his claim, the applicant alleges infringement of
                                                                        Annex I to the common rules on sickness insurance, which
                                                                        guarantee insurance cover of the services at issue. He maintains
                                                                        in that respect that:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        — Title X of Annex I to the common rules provides that fees
    Trade Mark         con- ‘EU-LEX’ — Registration Num-                     for treatment by legally authorised medical auxiliaries is
                                                                             to be reimbursed, provided such auxiliary treatment is
    cerned:                  ber 2436
                                                                             described by the practitioner;
    Goods or services:       ‘Class 42 — Legal and tax advice
                             by the offices of the members,             — the illness in question is covered by the common rules on
                             where permitted under the law                   sickness insurance. In this case, the Commission recognised
                             applicable to the head office of the            the existence of a serious illness, giving rise to reimburse-
                             office in question’                             ment of 100 % of expenses incurred, by decision of
                                                                             19 June 1998; and
    Decision       disputed Refusal of registration by the
    before the Board of examiner                                        — the auxiliary services provided were of a medical nature,
    Appeal:                                                                  and should thus give rise to reimbursement.
    Pleas in law:            — Breach of Article 7(1)(b) of
                                  Regulation (EC) No 40/94              The applicant also pleads infringement of the duty to state
                                                                        reasons.
                             — Misapplication of Article
                                  7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
                                  No 40/94                              Purely in the alternative, he argues that the services in question
                                                                        fell within the scope of those which could be provided by a
                                                                        nurse.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 1996 in Joined Cases C-254/94, C-255/94 and C-269/94 (references for preliminary rulings made by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio): Fattoria Autonoma Tabacchi and Others v. Ministero dell'Agricoltura e delle Foreste and Others (Common market organization - Raw tobacco - Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 - Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3477/92)

text:
 No C 336/ 14           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9 . 11 . 96
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        a fall in production as a result of exceptional
                         ( Fifth Chamber )                                   circumstances, without taking full account of the losses
                                                                             actually suffered by individual producers.
                     of 12 September 1996
 in Joined Cases C-254/94, C-255/94 and C-269/94                       3 . The third indent of Article 2, in conjunction with
 ( references for preliminary rulings made by the Tribunale                  Article 21 , of Regulation (EEC) No 3477192 precludes
 Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio ): Fattoria Autonoma                     national rules not allowing a single cultivation
 Tabacchi and Others v. Ministero dell'Agricoltura e delle                   certificate or a single production quota to be given to a
                      Foreste and Others (M                                 producer group founded with the aim ofpromoting and
 (Common market organization — Raw tobacco — Council                        facilitating the cultivation of tobacco by its members,
 Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 — Commission Regulation                         while at the same time undertaking the first processing
                       (EEC) No 3477/92)                                    of tobacco on its own premises.
                           ( 96/C 336/25 )
                                                                      4 . Article 9 (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2975/92
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                            of 30 June 1992 on the common organization of the
                                                                            market in raw tobacco must be interpreted as meaning
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be               that processing undertakings may be divided into seven
          published in the European Court Reports)                          distinct groups, on condition that the processing quota
                                                                            is determined according to the rules of calculation
                                                                            prescribed for the group to which the sub-category in
In Cases C-254/94, C-255/94 and C-269/94 : references to                    question belongs. Article 9 (1 ) of Regulation (EEC)
the Court pursuant to Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the                   No 3477/92 must be interpreted as meaning that
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio ( Regional                     producers may have different rules for calculating the
Administrative Court, Lazio ) ( Italy ) for preliminary rulings             processing quota applied to them depending on the
in the proceedings pending before that court between                        processing undertaking to which they delivered during
Fattoria        Autonoma         Tabacchi     and     Ministero
                                                                            the reference period.
dell'Agricoltura e delle Foreste, Azienda di Stato per gli
Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo ( AIMA ), Consorzio
                                                                      (■) OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
Nazionale Tabacchicoltori ( CNT), Unione Nazionale
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No L 215 , 1992 , p . 70 .
Tabacchicoltori (Unata ) and Ditta Mario Pittari, between             ( 3 ) OJ No L 351 , 1992 , p . 11 .
Lino Bason and others and Ministero dell'Agricoltura e delle
Foreste, Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato
Agricolo ( AIMA) and Unione Nazionale Tabacchicoltori
(Unata ), and between Associazione Professionale
Trasformatori Tabacchi Italiani ( APTI ) and others and
Ministero dell'Agricoltura e delle Foreste, Consorzio
Nazionale Tabacchicoltori ( CNT ), Unione Nazionale                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Tabacchicoltori (Unata ) and Ditta Mario Pittari — on the                                       ( Sixth Chamber )
interpretation of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2075/92 of
                                                                                of 17 September 1996
30 June 1992 on the common organization of the market in
raw tobacco ( 2 ) and on the validity and interpretation of                  in Case C-289/94: Commission of the European
certain provisions of Commission Regulation ( EEC )                                   Communities v. Italian Republic ( J )
No 3477/92 of 1 December 1992 laying down detailed rules             (Failure to fulfil obligations — Duty of prior notification
for the application of the raw tobacco quota system for the                          pursuant to Directive 83/189/EEC)
1993 and 1994 harvests ( 3 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),                                       ( 96/C 336/26 )
composed of: D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
J. -P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ),
C. Gulmann and M. Wathelet, Judges; M. B. Elmer,                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 September 1996 ,           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
the operative part of which is as follows:                                       published in the European Court Reports)
1 . Examination of the questions raised has disclosed no             In Case C-289/94 : Commission of the European
      factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of             Communities v. Italian Republic — application for a
      Articles 3 (3), 9 and 10 of Commission Regulation              declaration that, by issuing four Ministry of Health Decrees,
      (EEC) No 3477/92 of 1 December 1992 laying down                namely Nos 256 and 257 of 1 August 1990 and those of
      detailed rules for the application of the raw tobacco          1 September 1990 and 7 June 1991 , without notifying them
      quota system for the 1993 and 1994 harvests.                   to the Commission at the draft stage, the Italian Republic
                                                                     failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to Articles 8 and 9 of
2 . Article 9 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3477/92 does not            Council Directive 83/ 189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying
      preclude the establishment, in advance and according to        down a procedure for the provision of information in the
      a system of flat-rate calculation, of reserves varying         field of technical standards and regulations ( 2 ), as amended
      according to the varieties of tobacco, which are intended      by Council Directive 88/ 182/EEC ( 3 ) — the Court ( Sixth
      for distribution among producers who have suffered             Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris, President of the


No C 269/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14 . 9 . 96
        Removal from the register of Case C-5/96 ( 1 )                       Removal from the register of Case C-413/93 ( )
                           ( 96/C 269/46 )                                                        ( 96/C 269/50 )
By order of 23 May 1996 , the President of the Court of                By order of 19 June 1996 , the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-5/96 : Commission of the                   from the register of Case C-413/93 ( Request for a
European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .                             preliminary ruling from the Pretura circondariale di
                                                                       Trapani ): Criminal proceedings against Matteo Peralta .
(') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 300 , 6 . 11 . 1993 .
      Removal from the register of Case C-387/95 (')
                           ( 96/C 269/47 )                                   Removal from the register of Case C-121 /94 (')
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/51 )
By order of 3 June 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 28 June 1996 , the President of the Court of
register of Case C-387/95 : Commission of the European                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Communities v. Ireland .                                               from the register of Case C-121 /94 ( Request for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht ): Domingo
(') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .                                        Gonzalez-Rodriguez v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-394/95 (')
                            ( 96/C 269/48 )
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-385/95 ( )
By order of 3 June 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice                                   ( 96/C 269/52 )
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-394/95 : Commission of the European                 By order of 28 June 1996 , the President of the Court of
Communities v. Ireland .                                               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-385/95 : Commission of the
(') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .                                        European Communities v. Portuguese Republic .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-40/96 ( )
                            ( 96/C 269/49 )
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-393/95 ( )
 By order of 5 June 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice                                   ( 96/C 269/53 )
 of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-40/96 : Commission of the European                   By order of 9 July 1 996 , the President of the Court of Justice
 Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .                                      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                        register of Case C-393/95 : Commission of the European
 (') OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .                                       Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
                                                                        (>) OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .


title: Case C-21/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság lodged on 13 January 2010 — Károly Nagy v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság lodged on 13 January 2010 — Károly Nagy v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal
   (Case C-21/10)
   2010/C 113/23
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nagy Károly

      Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal

      Questions referred

               1.

               May Articles 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (1) and [68] of Commission Regulation No 817/2004 (2) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of specific programmes for grassland by way of agri-environmental aid under the first article mentioned, the checks on the data contained in the ENAR (Egységes Nyilvántartási és Azonosítási Rendszer — Integrated Identification and Registration System), pursuant to Article 68 of Regulation No 817/2004, must also be extended to area aid specifying a certain density of livestock?

               2.

               May the above provisions be interpreted as meaning that cross-checks under the integrated administration and control system must be carried out also in cases where the pre-condition for aid is the density of livestock, although the aid is not for animals?

               3.

               May those provisions be interpreted as meaning that, in assessing area aid, the competent authority may or must check whether the conditions for aid are met, independently of the ENAR?

               4.

               On the basis of the interpretation of the above provisions, what monitoring obligation arises for the competent authority from the requirement in the above Community provisions for checks and cross-checks? May the monitoring be limited exclusively to review of the data contained in the ENAR?

               5.

               Do those provisions impose an obligation on the national authority to provide information concerning the pre-conditions for aid (for example, registration in the ENAR)? If so, in what way and to what extent?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80).

      (2)  Commission Regulation(EC) No 817/2004 of 29 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 153, p. 30).


title: Removal from the register of Case T-295/02.

text:
C 55/42                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                     8.3.2003
as the Commission changed the legal assessment of the                       Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-100/02 and
infringements without offering the applicant the possibility of                                        T-102/02 (1)
responding to it during the administrative proceedings.
                                                                                (2003/C 55/100)
( 1) EEC Council: Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing                              (Language of the Case: English)
     Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ 13 of 21.2.1962, p. 204).
                                                                            By order of 2 December 2002 the President of the Fifth
                                                                            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                            Communities ordered the removal from the register of Joined
                                                                            Cases T-100/02 and T-102/02: EVC International N.V. v
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities.
         Removal from the register of Case T-96/01 (1)
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 156 of 29.06.2002.
                           (2003/C 55/98)
                     (Language of the Case: Greek)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-170/02 (1)
By order of 13 December 2002 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                                               (2003/C 55/101)
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-96/01: Rodolfos Maslias v European Parliament.                                                (Language of the Case: French)
( 1) OJ C 200 of 14.07.2001.
                                                                            By order of 6 December 2002 the President of the Second
                                                                            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                            Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                            T-170/02: Maria Rosaria Ragazzini v European Parliament.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24.08.2002.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-99/02 and
                             T-101/02 ( 1)
                           (2003/C 55/99)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-295/02 ( 1).
                    (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/102)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
By order of 2 December 2002 the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Joined                 By order of 13 December 2002 the President of the Third
Cases T-99/02 and T-101/02: Ineos N.V. v Commission of the                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities.                                                       Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                            T-295/02: Koninklijke BAM NBM N.V. v Commission of the
( 1) OJ C 156 of 29.06.2002.                                                European Communities.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.


               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/37

         Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-451/02 and C-452/02 (1)

   (2004/C 300/71)
   By order of 27 July 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Joined Cases C-451/02 and C-452/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Bremen v Joh. C. Henschen GmbH & Co. KG (C-451/02) and ITG GmbH Internationale Spedition (C-452/02).

      (1)  OJ C 55 du 8.3.2003.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 1998 in Joined Cases C-176/97 and C-177/97: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium and Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 - Freedom to provide maritime transport services - Maritime Agreement concluded with a third country - Cargo-sharing arrangement)

text:
C 258/8                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.8.98
     under such a certificate may thus not benefit from the               entered into force after 1 January 1987, the Kingdom
     preferential rate provided for in that Regulation.                   of Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
                                                                          have failed to fulfil their obligations under Article 5 of
                                                                          Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of
(1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.
                                                                          22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom
                                                                          to provide services to maritime transport between
                                                                          Member States and between Member States and third
                                                                          countries;
                                                                     2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium and the Grand Duchy
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
                        of 11 June 1998
in Joined Cases C-176/97 and C-177/97: Commission of
the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium and
               Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Regulation (EEC) No 4055/
86 Ð Freedom to provide maritime transport services Ð                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Maritime Agreement concluded with a third country Ð                                          (Fifth Chamber)
                  Cargo-sharing arrangement)
                                                                                of 11 June 1998
                         (98/C 258/13)
                                                                     in Case C-291/97 P: H. v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
                (Language of the case: French)                       (Appeal Ð Officials Ð Invalidity procedure Ð Assessment
                                                                                of facts)
                                                                                (98/C 258/14)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Joined Cases C-176/97 and C-177/97: Commission of
the European Communities (Agent: Frank Benyon) v                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder) and Grand                             published in the European Court Reports)
Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: Nicolas Schmit) for a
declaration that, by introducing and maintaining in force
cargo-sharing arrangements, in the Agreement between the             In Case C-291/97 P: H, a former official of the
Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union and Malaysia on                      Commission of the European Communities, residing in
maritime transport, which was approved by the Kingdom                Brussels, represented by Vincent Lurquin, of the Brussels
of Belgium both in its own name and on behalf of the                 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and which entered into                     Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, Ð
force after 1 January 1987, the Kingdom of Belgium                   appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(C-176/97) and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (C-177/                 of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 3 June
97) have failed to fulfil their obligations under Article 5 of       1997 in Case T-196/95 H v Commission [1997] ECR-SC
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December                   II-403, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services           party to the proceedings being Commission of the
to maritime transport between Member States and                      European Communities (Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira Ð
between Member States and third countries (OJ L 378 of               the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
31.12.1986, p. 1), the Court composed of: C. Gulmann                 President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de
(President of Chamber), M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de               Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón (Rapporteur),
Almeida, D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón,                  Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl,                 has given a judgment on 11 June 1998, in which it:
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 11 June 1998, in which it:                               1. Dismisses the appeal;
1. Declares that, by introducing and maintaining in force            2. Orders the appellant to pay the costs.
     cargo-sharing arrangements, in the Agreement between
     the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union and Malaysia                (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
     on maritime transport which was approved by the
     Kingdom of Belgium both in its own name and on
     behalf of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and which


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 January 2004 in Case T-386/02 Lamprecht A.G. against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/41

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 26 January 2004
   in Case T-386/02 Lamprecht A.G. against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Not necessary to give judgment)
   (2004/C 94/119)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case T-386/02: Lamprecht A.G., established in Zurich (Switzerland), represented by E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (Agents: S. Laitinen and J. García Murillo), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) being Clickview Ltd (formerly J. Tricot & Sons Ltd), established in London — action for annulment brought by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘EMOSWISS’ in respect of goods in Classes 10, 24 and 25 against Decision R 275/2001-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) of 12 July 2002 dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division which rejected the opposition of the applicant to registration of the Community word mark ‘EMOS’ for certain goods in Class 25 — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 26 January 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               It is no longer necessary to give judgment.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ No C 55, 8.3.2003.


title: Action brought on 2 May 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against SIVU du Plan d'Eau de la Vallée du Lot and Sàrl Hydro-Réalisations (Case C-172/97)

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 199/ 13
— in the alternative, declare that, by not informing                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     the Commission forthwith of such measures, the
     Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations           The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
     under the abovementioned provisions,                               paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
                                                                        Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to
                                                                        adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                       addressed to them into their domestic law before the
                                                                        expiry of the period prescribed for doing so and forthwith
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     to inform the Commission thereof. That period, which is
                                                                        laid down in Article 2 of the Directive, expired on
                                                                        1 January 1992 without the Portuguese Republic having
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                     brought into force the necessary provisions.
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                    (') OJ No L 373 , 31 . 12 . 1990 , p . 15 .
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives                    (2 ) OJ No L 317, 6 . 11 . 1981 , p . 1 .
addressed to them into their domestic law before the
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so and forthwith
to inform the Commission thereof. That period, which is
laid down in Article 15 of the Directive, expired on 23 July
1993 without the Portuguese Republic having brought
into force the necessary provisions .                                   Action brought on 2 May 1997 by the Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities against SIVU du Plan d'Eau de la
0 ) OJ No L 228 , 17. 8 . 1991 , p . 70 .                                          Vallée du Lot and Sàrl Hydro-Réalisations
                                                                                ( Case C-l 72/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/26 )
                                                                        An action against the SIVU du Plan d'Eau de la Vallee du
                                                                        Lot and Sari Hydro-Realisations was brought before the
Action brought on 2 May 1997 by the Commission of the                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 May
  European Communities against the Portuguese Republic                  1997 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                         ( Case C-171 /97 )                             represented by Richard B. Wainwright, Principal Legal
                                                                        Adviser, and Jean-Francis Pasquier, an national civil
                           ( 97/C 199/25 )                              servant on secondment to the Legal Service , acting as
                                                                        Agents, assisted by Nicole Coutrelis and Stephanie Ponsot,
                                                                        lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                   office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 Kirchberg.
on 2 May 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,                  The Commission of the European Communities claims
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for              that the Court should :
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                   — order the SIVU and Sari Hydro-Realisations to pay to
                                                                              it the sum of ECU 83 928 ( eighty three thousand nine
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   hundred and twenty eight ecus ) together with the
                                                                              interest due thereon from 17 January 1991 , calculated
                                                                              at the rate applied by the EMCF in relation to its
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                     transactions in ecus, as published on the first working
      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with                   day of each month, and, in addition, statutory default
      Council Directive 90/676/EEC ( 1 ) of 13 December                       interest from 28 February 1993 ,
      1990 amending Directive 81 /851 /EEC on the
      approximation of the laws of the Member States                    — order the SIVU and Sari Hydro-Realisations to pay the
      relating to veterinary medicinal products ( 2 ), the                    costs .
      Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      Treaty and Article 2 of Directive 90/676/EEC,
                                                                         On 6 December            1990, in the context of Council
— in the alternative, declare that, by not informing the                 Regulation ( EEC ) No 3640/85 of 20 December 1985 on
      Commission      forthwith       of   such   measures,    the      the promotion, by financial support, of demonstration
      Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations           projects and industrial pilot projects in the energy field ( 1 ),
      under the abovementioned provisions,                               the Commission concluded with the SIVU du Pays d'Ac
                                                                         ceuil de la Vallee du Lot and Sari Hydro-Realisations,
                                                                         acting jointly and severally, a contract providing for the
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .                       grant of financial support by the Community for the
 ---pagebreak---  No C 199/ 14         EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28 . 6 . 97
 project entitled 'Plan d'Eau sur le Lot — Integration d'une             paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty, the Member States
 microcentrale hydroelectrique basse chute dans le seuil '               are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
 (Stretch of water on the River Lot — Incorporation in the               particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising
 barrage weir of a small low-head hydro-electric power                   out of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the
 station ).                                                              institutions of the Community.
 On 17 January 1991 an advance payment of ECU 83 928                     The Commission notes that the Hellenic Republic has not
was made to the said contracting parties .                               yet taken the appropriate measures to transpose the
                                                                         Directive in question fully into the Greek legal system .
Thereafter, the project was modified and the construction
                                                                         (') OJ No L 375 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 1 .
of a small hydro-electric power station was abandoned . By
letter of 6 November 1992, the SIVU stated that the
financial support of the Community was no longer needed
and, by letter of 18 November 1992, the Commission
terminated the contract and demanded repayment of the
sum advanced .
                                                                        Appeal brought on 5 May 1997 by Fédération Française
The Commission has been unsuccessful in the steps which                 des Sociétés d'Assurances (FFSA), Union des Sociétés
it has taken since then to secure the said repayment.                  Etrangères d'Assurances ( USEA), Groupe des Assurances
                                                                       Mutuelles Agricoles ( Groupama), Fédération Nationale
                                                                        des Syndicats d'Agents Généraux d'Assurances (FNSAGA),
(■) OJ No L 350, 27. 12 . 1985 , p . 29 .                              Fédération Française des Courtiers d'Assurance et de Réas
                                                                        surances ( FCA) and Bureau International des Producteurs
                                                                       d'Assurances et de Réassurances (BIPAR ) against the
                                                                       judgment delivered on 27 February 1997 by the Third
                                                                       Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities in Case T-l 06/95
Action brought on 5 May 1997 by the Commission of the                  between the Fédération Française des Sociétés d'Assuran
    European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                 ces ( FFSA), Union des Sociétés Etrangères d'Assurances
                                                                        ( USEA), Groupe des Assurances Mutuelles Agricoles
                       ( Case C-173/97
                                                                       ( Groupama), Fédération Nationale des Syndicats d'Agents
                         ( 97/C 199/27)                                Généraux d'Assurances (FNSAGA), Fédération Française
                                                                       des Courtiers d'Assurance et de Réassurances (FCA ) and
                                                                       Bureau International des Producteurs d'Assurances et de
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                    Réassurances       (BIPAR)       and     the Commission  of the
before the Court of Justice on 5 May 1997 by the                       European Communities, supported by the French Republic
Commission of the European Communities, represented                                                   and La Poste
by Maria-Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service, with an                                          ( Case C-l 74/97 P)
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gomez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal                                                    ( 97/C 199/28 )
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 27 February
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            1997 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of
                                                                       the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the period                  in Case T-106/95 between Fédération Française des Socié
     prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative               tés d'Assurances (FFSA), Union des Sociétés Etrangères
                                                                       d'Assurances ( USEA ), Groupe des Assurances Mutuelles
     provisions necessary to comply fully with Council
     Directive   91 /676/EEC        of    12  December      1991       Agricoles ( Groupama ), Fédération Nationale des Syndicats
                                                                       d'Agents Généraux d'Assurances ( FNSAGA ), Fédération
     concerning the protection of waters against pollution
                                                                       Française des Courtiers d'Assurance et de Réassurances
     caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (') and to
                                                                       ( FCA) and Bureau International des Producteurs d'Assu
     identify vulnerable zones on its territory, the Hellenic
                                                                       rances et de Réassurances ( BIPAR) and the Commission of
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
     EC Treaty and that Directive,                                     the European Communities was brought before the Court
                                                                       of Justice of the European Communities on 5 May 1997
                                                                       by Fédération Française des Sociétés d'Assurances ( FFSA ),
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                        Union Syndicale des Sociétés Etrangères d'Assurances
                                                                       ( USEA ), Groupe des Assurances Mutuelles Agricoles
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    ( Groupama ), Fédération des Syndicats d'Agents Généraux
                                                                       d'Assurances (FNSAGA ), Fédération Française des Cour
                                                                       tiers d'Assurance et des Réassurances (FCA) and Bureau
Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty                 International des Producteurs d'Assurance et de Réassu
establishing the European Community, a directive is to be              rances ( BIPAR), represented by Dominique Voillemot,
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Member State to which it is addressed . Under the first                Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .


title: Action brought on 17 October 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-327/95)

text:
9 . 12 . 95              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 333/9
necessary to comply with the Directives referred to in the               Action brought on 17 October 1995 by the Commission of
conclusions of the Commission .                                            the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-327/95 )
(')  OJ  No L 46 , 19 . 2 . 1991 , p . 1 .                                                        ( 95/C 333/ 17 )
(2)  OJ  No L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 1 .
(■') OJ  No L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 15 .
(4)  OJ  No L 187, 7 . 7 . 1992 , p . 41 .
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         17 October 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Eugenio de March, Legal
                                                                         Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                         Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 1° Juizo Civel da
Comarca de Lisboa by order of that court of 1 1 July 1995 in             The applicant claims that the Court should :
the case of Banco de Fomento e Exterior, SA, Amandio
Mauricio Martins Pechim and his wife Maria da Luz Lima
Barros Raposo Pechim against CTV — Confecgoes Texteis                    1 . declare that, by imposing a minimum price on oil-cake,
                           de Vouzela, Lda.                                   the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                           ( Case C-326/95 )                                  under the common organization of the market in
                             ( 95/C 333/ 16 )
                                                                              oils and fats established by Council Regulation
                                                                              No 136/66/EEC ( } ) of 22 September 19 66 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
European Communities by order of the 1° Juizo Civel da
Comarca de Lisboa ( Civil Court No 1 , Lisbon ) of 11 July
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                       Pleas in law and main arguments:
16 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Banco de Fomento e Exterior, SA, Amandio Mauricio
Martins Pechim and his wife Maria da Luz Lima Barros                     The oil and fats industry is governed by Regulation
Raposo Pechim against CTV — Confecgoes Texteis de                        No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 and subsequent
Vouzela Lda ., on the following questions :                              amendments . Article 1 lists the products to which it applies
                                                                         ( among them oil-cake and olive-residue oils ), grouping the
                                                                         various categories according to the treatment applied to
1 . Must be BFE be regarded as an ' undertaking' and in                  them by the organization of the market. That treatment
     particular 'a public undertaking', within the meaning of            varies according to the various products and constitutes
     Articles 90 and 92 of the Treaty of Rome ?                          exhaustive and complete regulation of the organization of
                                                                         the agricultural markets in oils and fats, which leaves no
2 . May the advantage which the BFE enjoys over its                      room for unilateral and autonomous action by the Member
     competitors be interpreted as being ' State aid ' within the        States .
     meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome ?
                                                                         The minimum prices for purchase by oil-presses and for sale
3 . Must such advantages be taken to be restrictions to the              by oil producers, imposed in respect of oil-cake by Italian
     freedom to provide services within the Community,                   Law No 1527/61 , mainly concern ( wholesale ) marketing of
     within the meaning of Article 59 of the Treaty of                   a product covered by the common organization of the
     Rome ?                                                              market in oil and fats .
4 . Do Articles 59 , 90 ( 1 ), and 92 ( 1 ) of the Treaty of Rome        It follows that the Law is contrary to and incompatible with
     have direct effect and may they be relied upon in the               the provisions governing the aforementioned common
     present proceedings ?                                               organization of the market inasmuch as it constitutes a
                                                                         national intervention measure in a field where Community
5 . Do the rules of the Treaty of Rome take precedence over              rules are exhaustive .
     and negate any conflicting national law ?
                                                                         The arguments put forward by the Italian authorities to
6 . Does the present case concern a question of Community                justify keeping in force the mandatory fixing of the
     law, or is the interpretation thereof sufficiently clear and        minimum price of oil-cake are not, in the view of the
     self-evident such as to obviate the need to make a                  Commission, of such a kind as to bring to an end the
     reference for a preliminary ruling ?                                infringement at issue . Even if it were to be accepted that the
                                                                         imposition of a minimum price could contribute to attaining
                                                                         objectives in themselves worthy of protection, it would not
                                                                         however render lawful the choice of an instrument which
 ---pagebreak--- No C 333/ 10          EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9 . 12 . 95
consists of a unilateral intervention in a field exhaustively             system in order to justify a failure to comply with its
and exclusively regulated by the common organization of                   obligations under Community law.
the market .
                                                                          (') OJ No L 119 , 11 . 5 . 1990 , p . 32 .
(') OJ, English Special Edition, Series ( I ) 1965 to 1966 , p. 221 .     ( 2 ) OJ No L 41 , 14 . 2 . 1991 , p . 15 .
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Value Added Tax
Action brought on 17 October 1995 by the Commission of                    Tribunal, Manchester, by direction of that court of
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                   18 September 1995 , in the case of Goldsmiths (Jewellers )
                        ( Case C-328/95 )                                       Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise
                          ( 95/C 333/ 18 )                                                           ( Case C-330/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 333/ 19 )
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
17 October 1995 by the Commission of the European                         European Communities by direction of the Value Added
Communities, represented by Eugenio March, Legal                          Tax Tribunal, Manchester, of 18 September 1995 , which
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                  was received at the Court Registry on 19 October 1995 , for
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its               a preliminary ruling in the case of Goldsmiths (Jewellers )
Legal Service , Wagner Centre , Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                    Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the
                                                                          following question :
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                          Is the derogation contained in Article 11 ( c ) ( 1 ) of the Sixth
1 . declare that, by not adopting the measures necessary for              Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of
     the correct and full application of Council Regulation               the laws of Member States relating to turnover taxes
     ( EEC ) No 1186/90 (*) of 7 May 1990 extending the                   — Common system of value added tax: uniform
     scope of the Community scale for the classification of               basis of assessment (Directive 77/388/EEC ) (the 'Sixth
     carcases of adult bovine animals and Commission                      Directive ') (') to be interpreted as permitting a Member
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 344/91 ( 2 ) of 13 February 1991               State which enacts provisions for the refund of tax in the
                                                                          case of bad debts to exclude relief where the consideration
     laying down detailed rules for the implementation
     thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its               lost consists of something other than money ?
     obligations under those regulations and the second
     paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty .                          (!) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments:
Since Article 3 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1186/90 requires
Member States to take all the measures necessary to ensure                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                                                                          Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli by
that the provisions are applied and to penalize any                       order of that court of 4 October 1995 in criminal
infringements, it requires the Member States therefore to
                                                                          proceedings against Giuseppe Piccolo ( Case C-331/95 ),
adopt in their national legal system the laws, regulations or             Mario Corbo and Others ( Case C-332/95 ) and Miranda
administrative provisions necessary actually to implement
                                                                                Viola ( Case C-342/95 )
the Community classification scale .
                                                                                ( Cases C-331/95 , C-332/95 and C-342/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 333/20 )
The Italian Republic has not yet taken the measures it was
required to adopt for the full and correct implementation
of Council Regulations ( EEC ) No 1186/90 and ( EEC )                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
No 344/91 and has therefore failed to fulfil its obligations               the European Communities by orders of the Pretura
under those regulations and under the second paragraph of                  Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli
Article 189 of the EC Treaty. The Court has consistently                   ( Rome District Magistrate's Court, Tivoli Division ) of
held that a Member State may not plead provisions,                         4 October 1995 , which were received at the Court Registry
practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal                  on 19 October 1995 ( Cases C-331/95 and C-332/95 ) and