title: Judgment of the Court of 2 March 1999 in Case C-179/97: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (Fisheries - Conservation of maritime resources - Inspection of fishing vessels - Joint international inspection programme adopted by the North-West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation)

text:
C 136/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          15.5.1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 2 March 1999
                                                                                of 4 March 1999
in Case C-179/97: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                in Case C-119/97 P: Union Française de l’Express (Ufex),
                                                                           DHL International and Service CRIE v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities and May Courier (1)
(Fisheries — Conservation of maritime resources — Inspec-                  (Appeal — Competition — Dismissal of an application for
tion of fishing vessels — Joint international inspection                   annulment — Commission’s task under Articles 85 and 86
programme adopted by the North-West Atlantic Fisheries                        of the EC Treaty — Assessment of Community interest)
                           Organisation)
                                                                                (1999/C 136/03)
                          (1999/C 136/02)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-119/97 P, Union Française de l’Express (Ufex),
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     formerly Syndicat Français de L’Express International (SFEI),
                   in the European Court Reports)                          an association of undertakings governed by French law,
                                                                           established in Roissy-en-France (France), DHL International,
                                                                           a company incorporated under French law, established in
                                                                           Roissy-en-France, Service CRIE, a company incorporated under
In Case C-179/97: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Rosario Silva de                French law, established in Paris, represented by Eric Morgan de
Lapuerta) v Commission of the European Communities                         Rivery, of the Paris Bar, and Jacques Derenne, of the Brussels
(Agents: Thomas van Rijn and Blanca Vil Costa) — application               and Paris Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 494/97 of                   the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix — appeal
18 March 1997 modifying Regulation (EEC) No 2868/88                        against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
establishing detailed rules for the application of the Joint               European Communities (Third Chamber) of 15 January 1997
International Inspection Scheme adopted by the North-West                  in Case T-77/95 SFEI and Others v Commission 1997 ECR
Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (OJ L 77, 19.3.1997, p. 5), in             II-1, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
so far as it inserts Article 4(a)(6) in Commission Regulation              parties to the proceedings being Commission of the European
(EEC) No 2868/88 of 16 September 1988 (OJ L 257,                           Communities (Agents: Richard Lyal and Fabiola Mascardi,
17.9.1988, p. 20) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodrı́guez               assisted by Jean-Yves Art) and May Courier, a company
Iglesias, President, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann        incorporated under French law, established in Paris — the
(Rapporteur) Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray,             Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President
D. A. O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and                  of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann,
R. Schintgen, Judges, M. S. Alber, Advocate General; D.                    D. A. O. Edward and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges;
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,              Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer; Registrar: R. Grass,
has given a judgment on 2 March 1999 in which it:                          has given a judgment on 4 March 1999, in which it:
                                                                           1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
1. Dismisses the application;                                                   15 January 1997 in Case T-77/95 SFEI and Others v
                                                                                Commission;
2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                           2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;
                                                                           3. Reserves the costs.
( 1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997.


title: Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Ditta Pietro Stagno against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-600/97)

text:
C 72/18               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.3.98
Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Ditta Pietro                  Clarich and Alessandro Giadrossi, of the Bars of Florence
Stagno against the Commission of the European                       and Trieste, with an address for service at the latter's
                          Communities                               Chambers at 17 Via XXX Ottobre, Trieste.
                       (Case T-600/97)
                          (98/C 72/40)                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
                                                                         30 July 1997,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 December                 Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
1997 by Ditta Pietro Stagno, represented by Marcello                     inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
Clarich and Alessandro Giadrossi, of the Bars of Florence                the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
and Trieste, with an address for service at the latter's                 the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
Chambers at 17 Via XXX Ottobre, Trieste.                                 was paid,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities to pay the costs.
Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
     30 July 1997,
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
     inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
     the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with           relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
     the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid         Giulia v. Commission (1).
     was paid,
                                                                    (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
     Communities to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Trasporti e
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those            Spedizioni Internazionali Cossutta SNC against the
relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia                          Commission of the European Communities
Giulia v. Commission (1).
                                                                                (Case T-602/97)
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.                                                                 (98/C 72/42)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Ditta Fabrizio                Communities was brought before the Court of First
Cernecca against the Commission of the European                     Instance of the European Communities on 19 December
                          Communities                               1997 by Trasporti e Spedizioni Internazionali Cossutta
                       (Case T-601/97)                              SNC, represented by Marcello Clarich and Alessandro
                                                                    Giadrossi, of the Bars of Florence and Trieste, with an
                          (98/C 72/41)                              address for service at the latter's Chambers at 17 Via
                                                                    XXX Ottobre, Trieste.
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 December                 Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
1997 by Ditta Fabrizio Cernecca, represented by Marcello                 30 July 1997,


title: Case C-371/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Köln by order of that Court of 21 August 2003 in the proceedings between Aulinger and The Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 289/12               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                      29.11.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van                      ‘Split transport’ is to be understood as meaning:
Eerste Aanleg of the Antwerp judicial district by judgment
of that Court of 13 June 2003 in the case of Jean-Claude                     The carriage of persons to or from the territory covered
    De Baeck against Belgian State, Ministry of Finance                      by the embargo by means of a joint operation between
                                                                             an undertaking established in a Member State of the
                                                                             Community and an undertaking established in the terri-
                         (Case C-268/03)                                     tory covered by the embargo, the former providing
                                                                             carriage to the vicinity of the border of the territory
                        (2003/C 289/22)                                      covered by the embargo and the latter carriage from there
                                                                             into the territory covered by the embargo (the passengers
                                                                             changing vehicle).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  2.   If the Court of Justice finds that split transport was
European Communities by judgment of the Rechtbank van                        permissible: Was there an obligation under Article 10 or
Eerste Aanleg (First-instance court) of the Antwerp judicial                 Article 297 EC or other provisions of Community law to
district of 13 June 2003, received at the Court Registry on                  consult other Member States and/or the Commission
19 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Jean-                  before taking national measures based on the unlaw-
Claude De Baeck against Belgian State, Ministry of Finance on                fulness of split transport?
the following question:
                                                                        (1) OJ L 151, p. 4.
Do Articles 43, 46, 48, 56 and 58 EC preclude Belgian
legislation, namely Articles 67(8) and 67ter of the WIB64,
pursuant to which the surplus values realised on the occasion
of the transfer for valuable consideration, otherwise than in
the context of the exercise of a business activity, of shares, or
other proof of entitlement to holdings, in Belgian companies,
associations, establishments or institutions are liable to tax
where the transfer is to a foreign company, association,
establishment or institution, even though in the same circum-           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te
stances those surplus values are not liable to tax where the            ’s-Hertogenbosch by judgment of that Court of 24 July
transfer is to a Belgian company, association, establishment or         2003 in the case of D against head of the Private
institution?                                                              Individuals/Enterprises/Foreign Countries/Heerlen unit
                                                                                (Case C-376/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/24)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
richt Köln by order of that Court of 21 August 2003
in the proceedings between Aulinger and The Federal                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                     Republic of Germany                                European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof te ’s-
                                                                        Hertogenbosch (Regional Court of Appeal, ’s-Hertogenbosch)
                                                                        of 24 July 2003, received at the Court Registry on 8 September
                         (Case C-371/03)                                2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of D against head of
                                                                        the Private Individuals/Enterprises/Foreign Countries/Heerlen
                        (2003/C 289/23)                                 unit on the following questions:
                                                                        1.   Does Community law, and in particular Article 56 EC et
                                                                             seq., preclude legislation such as that referred to in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       main proceedings, under which a domestic taxpayer is
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht                       always entitled to deduction of a tax allowance in respect
Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne) of 21 August 2003,                     of wealth tax, whereas a foreign taxpayer has no such
received at the Court Registry on 1st September 2003, for a                  entitlement in the case where the assets in question are
preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Aulinger and                   situated predominantly in the taxpayer’s State of residence
The Federal Republic of Germany on the following questions:                  (in which no wealth tax is levied)?
1.    Was Article 1(d) of Council Regulation No 1432/92 (1) of          2.   If not, does it make a difference in this case that the
      1 June 1992 (the so-called ‘Embargo Regulation’) to be                 Netherlands has, under a bilateral treaty, granted to
      interpreted as meaning that the commercial carriage of                 residents of Belgium, who in all other respects are
      persons to or from the territory covered by the embargo                in comparable circumstances, entitlement to the tax
      involving so-called ‘split’ transport was permitted or                 allowance (where no wealth tax is levied in Belgium
      prohibited?                                                            either)?


title: Case C-326/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Protodikio Thessalonikis (First Chamber, Three Judges) by judgment of that court of 31 January 2000 in the case of Idrima Kinonikon Asfalision against Vasilios Ioannidis

text:
C 335/30               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25.11.2000
—    Absence in the Netherlands action programme of pro-                    IKA’s Medical Committee of Appeal, is consistent with
     visions concerning the limitation of the land application              the provisions set out above of Articles 31 and 36
     of fertilisers based on a balance between (a) the foreseeable          of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council and
     nitrogen requirements of the crops and (b) the nitrogen                Articles 31 and 93 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the
     supply to the crops from the soil and from fertilisation               Council since, even if it were accepted that those pro-
     (Article 5(4)(a) in conjunction with point 1(3) of                     visions in principle confer on the Member States discre-
     Annex III to the directive);                                           tion — in respect of benefits including sickness benefits
                                                                            in kind to pensioners temporarily staying in the territory
—    Absence in the Netherlands action programme of                         of a Member State other than the one in which they reside,
     measures ensuring that the amount of livestock manure                  which benefits must be considered also to comprise the
     applied to the land each year does not exceed the amount               provision of hospital treatment — to enact provisions
     per hectare prescribed by the directive (Article 5(4)(a) in            establishing as an additional condition for the refund of
     conjunction with point 2 of Annex III to the directive);               the costs relating to the benefits the, albeit ex post facto,
                                                                            authorisation of those costs, it is in any event not entirely
—    Absence in the Netherlands action programme of                         clear and free from doubt whether they additionally allow
     measures relating to points which should have been                     the Member States to enact provisions establishing as a
     covered in the code of good agricultural practice                      necessary condition for the grant of such authorisation
     (Article 5(4)(b) in conjunction with Annex III to the                  that requirements be met similar to those laid down in
     directive and Article 4(1)(a) in conjunction with Annex II             the aforementioned provision of the IKA Regulations at
     to the directive);                                                     issue, that is to say requirements which are related to the
                                                                            immediate need for provision of hospital treatment;
—    Absence in the Netherlands action programme of any
     additional or reinforced measures relating to dry, sandy          (b) whether, on the basis that services comprising the
     soil (Article 5(5) of the directive).                                  provision of care within hospitals constitute services
                                                                            within the meaning of Article 60 of the EC Treaty, the
(1) OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1.                                                    aforementioned provision of the IKA Regulations, even if
                                                                            it were considered, to the extent referred to above, not to
                                                                            be contrary to the above provisions of the Council
                                                                            Regulations, is consistent to that extent with Articles 59
                                                                            and 60 of the EC Treaty;
                                                                       (c)  if Question (b) is answered in the negative, whether the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko                         rule laid down by that provision of the IKA Regulations
Protodikio Thessalonikis (First Chamber, Three Judges)                      is justified on grounds of public health which are related
by judgment of that court of 31 January 2000 in the case                    to the provision of a balanced hospital service accessible
of Idrima Kinonikon Asfalision against Vasilios Ioannidis                   to everybody resident within Greece and therefore falls
                                                                            within the exceptions in Article 56 of the EC Treaty;
                         (Case C-326/00)
                                                                       (d) whether, on the basis that the entitlement to sickness
                                                                            benefits in kind and, by extension, the claim for refund
                         (2000/C 335/53)
                                                                            of the costs relating to them constitute ‘possessions’
                                                                            within the meaning of Article 1 of the Protocol to the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
European Communities by judgment of the Diikitiko Protodi-                  and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Paris on 20 March
kio Thessalonikis (Administrative Court of First Instance,                  1952, the aforementioned provision of the IKA Regu-
Thessaloniki) (First Chamber, Three Judges) of 31 January                   lations — even if it were considered that to the extent
2000, received at the Court Registry on 4 September 2000 for                referred to above it is not contrary to the aforementioned
a preliminary ruling in the case of the Idrima Kinonikon                    provisions of the Council Regulations and of the EC
Asfalision (Social Security Institution; ‘IKA’) against Vasilios            Treaty, or, that is to say on the contrary basis, that it is
Ioannidis on the following questions:                                       justified in accordance with the matters previously set
                                                                            out — is consistent to that extent with the first paragraph
(a)  whether Article 3a(4)(g) of the Hospital Care Regulations              of Article 1 of the Protocol; and
     of the IKA, in the version in force at the time of the
     defendant’s hospital treatment, to the extent that it laid
                                                                       (e)  if Question (d) is answered in the negative, whether the
     down as an additional requirement, before the IKA may
                                                                            rule laid down by the aforementioned provision of the
     in very exceptional cases — namely in cases where a
                                                                            IKA Regulations is justified on grounds of public interest
     particular illness of the pensioner of the IKA seeking
                                                                            which are connected with preservation of the financial
     their refund manifested itself suddenly while he was
                                                                            stability of the social security system and therefore falls
     temporarily staying abroad or he was transferred there
                                                                            within the exceptions in the second paragraph of Article 1
     urgently in order to avert a real risk to his life — refund
                                                                            of that Protocol.
     the costs of treatment which has already taken place in
     hospital abroad, that the director of the competent
     regional branch of the IKA must grant the related
     authorisation after an opinion has been given by the


title: Action brought on 4 January 1999 by T. Port GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-1/99)

text:
C 71/34              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.3.1999
Action brought on 4 January 1999 by T. Port GmbH &               since the beginning of this century, states that it has been
Co. KG against the Commission of the European                    recognised since 1 July 1993 as a Category A operator. It
                       Communities                               also states that, since 1995, it has had import contacts
                       (Case T-1/99)                             with banana producers in Costa Rica.
                      (1999/C 71/64)
                                                                 In its claim, it seeks compensation for the damage it
              (Language of the case: German)                     claims to have suffered through having to pay the cost of
                                                                 the export licences as a condition for importing bananas
                                                                 from Costa Rica. The judgment of the Court of Justice
An action against the Commission of the European                 cited above clearly shows, in its submission, that the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                annulled article infringed the general prohibition of
Instance of the European Communities on 4 January 1999           discrimination and Article 40(3) of the EC Treaty. The
by T. Port GmbH & Co. KG, whose registered office is in          infringement of the principle of equality and the
Hamburg, represented by Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt,                discrimination against Category A operators was carried
Jakordenstraûe 10, Köln.                                         out arbitrarily and for ulterior motives (financial aid).
                                                                 Those legal infringements caused damage to the applicant
The applicant claims that the Court should:                      arising in the following ways: It was obliged to fulfil
                                                                 acceptance obligations towards its producer in Costa Rica.
                                                                 In order to obtain import licences for those bananas and
1. require the Commission to pay the applicant damages           market them in the Community, it had to prove to the
    of DM 828 337.10 in respect of its loss suffered             competent German authority, when applying for the
    through having to buy export licences in Costa Rica in       import licences, that it held the corresponding export
    order to be able to use its rights as a Category A           licences. In order to acquire the licences, the applicant
    operator to import bananas into the Community and            incurred the expenditure referred to in its claims.
    market third-country bananas from Costa Rica in
    Germany;
                                                                 (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 478/95 of 1 March 1995 on
                                                                     additional rules for the application of Council Regulation
2. require the Commission to pay the applicant damages               (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the tariff quota arrangements for
    of DM 126 356.80 in respect of its loss suffered                 imports of bananas into the Community and amending
    through having to use external credits in order to               Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 (OJ L 49, 4.3.1995, p. 13).
    finance the expenses incurred in respect of the export       (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on
    licences;                                                        the common organisation of the market in bananas (OJ L 47,
                                                                     25.2.1993, p. 1).
                                                                 (3) Delivered on 10 March 1998.
3. order interest of 4 % on the applicant's claims for
    damages, as from the commencement of proceedings;
4. order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:              Action brought on 4 January 1999 by T. Port GmbH &
                                                                      Co. KG against the Council of the European Union
In 1994, in the context of the GATT, the Community                                        (Case T-2/99)
concluded the so-called Framework Agreement on
bananas with Colombia, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and                                         (1999/C 71/65)
Venezuela.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
By Regulation (EC) No 478/95 (1), made pursuant to
Article 20 of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 (2), the
necessary measures for implementing the Framework
Agreement were to be finally adopted.                            An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                 Communities on 4 January 1999 by T. Port GmbH & Co.
By the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases          KG, whose registered office is in Hamburg, represented by
C-364/95 and C-365/95 T. Port GmbH & Co. v                       Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Jakordenstraûe 10, Köln.
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas [1998] ECR I-1023 (3),
Regulation (EC) No 478/95 was declared invalid to the
extent to which Article 3(2) thereof imposed only on             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Category A and C operators the obligation to obtain
export licences for bananas from Colombia, Costa Rica or
Nicaragua.
                                                                 1. order the Council to compensate the applicant for the
                                                                      loss which it suffered through having to buy or obtain
The applicant, which has been importing bananas from                  the use of import rights for bananas from Category A,
Latin America into Germany and marketing them there                   B or C operators in order to market third-country


title: Case T-355/99: Action brought on 13 December 1999 by Société Vatinel NV against Commission of the European Communities

text:
18.3.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 79/37
— in the alternative, declare that, in both the Lema and               Action brought on 13 December 1999 by Société Vatinel
     Consumer Electronic Service cases, the applicant is entitled        NV against Commission of the European Communities
     to remission of the duties in respect of which post-
     clearance recovery is sought;
                                                                                (Case T-355/99)
— order the Commission to pay all costs.                                                        (2000/C 79/79)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                           (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
In 1993, pursuant to ATR-1 certificates issued by the Turkish          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
authorities, the applicant imported a consignment of colour            European Communities on 13 December 1999 by Société
televisions from Turkey exempt from import duties. During              Vatinel NV, whose registered office is in Antwerp (Belgium),
an investigation in Turkey in 1993, the Commission’s services          represented by Mireille Famchon, of the Paris Bar, with an
established that the conditions for exemption had not been             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of François
satisfied inasmuch as countervailing duties had not been levied        Prum, 13 Avenue Guillaume.
in Turkey on the components of the television sets which had
originated in third countries.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       — annul Decision No C(1999)2286 final of 22 July 1999.
In the contested decisions the Commission rejected the
requests by the Belgian authorities not to seek post-clearance
recovery in this case of the import duties owed, or in the
alternative to remit those duties. The Commission took the             Pleas in law and main arguments
view that a prudent importer ought to have had serious doubts
as to the validity of those ATR-1 certificates.                        The applicant company in the present case contests the
                                                                       Commission’s decision that post-clearance recovery should be
                                                                       made of import duties which the applicant was not required
According to the applicant, the Turkish authorities had in this        to pay in respect of television sets imported from Turkey and
case made an ‘active error’ which the applicant itself could not       that the remission of those duties was not justified in a specific
possibly have discovered. In its view therefore, this is an error      case.
within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79,
in which case the duties cannot be the subject of post-clearance
recovery, or, alternatively, a special circumstance in which,          In support of its arguments, it claims that:
pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 13 of Regulation
No 1430/79, remission is granted. The fact that the Com-               — the right to a fair hearing and rights of the defence were
mission failed to detect these irregularities at an earlier stage          infringed, inasmuch as it had not received, to date, as
and failed to warn the undertakings concerned also points to               requested, the results of the investigation undertaken by
maladministration.                                                         the Commission in Turkey into the validity of the ATR1
                                                                           certificates submitted in support of the declarations in
                                                                           respect of the importation of television set from that
The applicant further argues that its rights of defence, in                country.
particular the principle of ‘equality of arms’, have not been
respected. The investigation in Turkey was conducted in a              — the disputed ATR certificates were not invalidated by the
one-sided manner, without the knowledge of the parties                     competent authorities of the issuing country, which is why
concerned and without any opportunity for them to reply.                   the Belgian customs authorities were not in a position to
                                                                           challenge the applicability of the ATR1 certificates at issue.
The applicant also submits that there is no longer any right to        — the Turkish authorities failed to bring their national
make post-clearance recovery, in accordance with Article 2 of              legislation into line with the decision of the Council of
Regulation No 1697/79.                                                     Association which required a countervailing export duty
                                                                           to be levied. Moreover, after being warned on several
                                                                           occasions by the Commission, the Turkish authorities
                                                                           cannot claim to have been unaware of the irregularity
The applicant concludes by referring to the pleas in law and
                                                                           under which it laboured.
arguments which it put forward in Case T-216/97.
                                                                       — contrary to what the Commission contends, the Turkish
                                                                           authorities were at no time taken advantage of by the
                                                                           exporters. Although third-country parts were used in
                                                                           the manufacture of television sets in Turkey, they were
 ---pagebreak--- C 79/38                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18.3.2000
     necessarily caught by the inward processing system and                  Community trade mark in the Community Trade Marks
     were thus constantly monitored by the Turkish customs                   Bulletin for the claimed services in Class 36 (insurance;
     authorities. It was the customs offices themselves which                financial affairs);
     stamped generally on the same day the export declarations
     which cleared the importation of duty-free components
                                                                         — in the alternative, annul the contested decision;
     and the ATRS. The Turkish offices themselves also dealt
     with clearance of licences, the recovery of securities, export
     formalities and the issuing of ATR certificates.                    — order the Office to pay such of the applicant’s costs as are
                                                                             recoverable.
— the Commission, despite being aware of the problem posed
     by the irregularities concerning the payment of the Turkish
     duties on components originating in third countries, did
     not consider that it should take appropriate measures to            Pleas in law and main arguments
     alert the operators concerned.
                                                                         Trade mark:                   Word mark ‘EuroHealth’ — appli-
— the error was not evident to the company, whose good                                                 cation no 293977
     faith was beyond reproach, and that they cannot be
     accused of being negligent.                                         Goods or services:            Goods and services in Class 36
                                                                                (insurance; financial affairs)
— it is justified in relying in the present case on a special
     circumstance within the meaning of Article 13 of Regu-              Decision         contested    Refusal by the examiner to regis-
     lation No 1430/79.                                                  before the Board of           ter
                                                                         Appeal:
Finally, the applicant takes the view that in any event, in the
operations in question, it acted as fiscal representative for the        Pleas in law:                 — infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
importer, which alone could be considered liable for any                                                   of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
customs debt.
                                                                                — misapplication of Article
                                                                                7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94
                                                                                — failure to take into account
                                                                                Article 12(b) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94
Action brought on 24 December 1999 by DKV Deutsche
Krankenversicherungs AG against the Office for Harmon-
 isation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs)
                          (Case T-359/99)
                           (2000/C 79/80)
                                                                         Action brought on 30 December 1999 by Karl L. Meyer
                                                                         against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                and the European Investment Bank
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Case T-361/99)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                            (2000/C 79/81)
24 December 1999 by DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherungs
AG, Cologne, Germany, represented by Stephan v. Peter-
dorff-Campen, of von Rospatt, von der Osten, Pross, of the                                  (Language of the case: French)
Düsseldorf Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the chambers of De Bandt, van Hecke, Lagae & Loesch, 11 Rue
Goethe, Luxembourg.                                                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties and the European Investment Bank was brought before
                                                                         the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              30 December 1999 by Karl L. Meyer, of Raiatea, French
                                                                         Polynesia, represented by Jean-Dominique des Arcis, of Uturoa,
— vary the contested decision and order the office to                    French Polynesia, with an address for service in Luxembourg
     publish the sign EuroHealth, application no 293977, as a            at the offices of Mr Pakowski, 20-22 Avenue Emile Reuter.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln, by order of that court of 8 May 1998 in proceedings concerning an administrative fine imposed on Eckard Pörschke (Case C-194/98)

text:
C 234/16                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         25.7.98
     (mentioned in category 6 of Annex IA) contracts for               Does the amount of the charge payable under Article 8(1)
     financial services in connection with the issue, sale,             of the Agreement depend solely on the number of axles
     purchase or transfer of securities or other financial              fitted to the motor vehicle or articulated vehicle
     instruments'.                                                      combination in question, regardless of the distance
                                                                        between them and irrespective of whether an axle is used
(1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.                                        or raised during the journey, or are tandem axles/raisable
(2) Translator's note: it would appear, from the words quoted,          axles to be left out of account in calculating the charge?
    that the provision referred to is actually Article 1(b)(vii), not
    Article 2(a)(viii).                                                 (1) Concerning the interpretation of Article 8(1) of the Agreement
                                                                            of 9 February 1994 on the levying of charges for the use of
                                                                            certain roads by heavy commercial vehicles (Bundesgesetzblatt
                                                                            [Federal Gazette], Part II, p. 1768).
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
gericht Köln, by order of that court of 8 May 1998 in
proceedings concerning an administrative fine imposed on
                        Alois Pfennigmann                               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
                         (Case C-193/98)                                Gerichtshof by order of that court of 30 April 1998 in the
                                                                        case of Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft
                          (98/C 234/30)
                                                                                öffentlicher Dienst v Republic of Austria
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                           (Case C-195/98)
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht                                            (98/C 234/32)
Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne) of 8 May 1998,
received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1998, for a                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
preliminary ruling in the proceedings concerning an                     European Communities by an order of the Oberster
administrative fine imposed on Alois Pfennigmann, on the                Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court) of 30 April 1998,
following question (1):                                                 which was received at the Court Registry on 20 May
                                                                        1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Is the answer to the question whether a motor vehicle or
                                                                        Österreichischer        Gewerkschaftsbund,          Gewerkschaft
articulated vehicle combination within the meaning of                   öffentlicher Dienst v Republic of Austria on the following
Article 2(1) of the Agreement in conjunction with the
                                                                        questions:
fourth indent of Article 2 of Council Directive 93/89/
EEC (2) is intended exclusively for the carriage of goods by            1. May a preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the
road conditional on the time at which, and the manner in                     European Communities under Article 177 of the EC
which, it is used, or does the answer to that question                       Treaty be sought in proceedings in which the Oberster
depend Ð irrespective of the purpose for which such a                        Gerichtshof has to decide, as a court of first and final
vehicle or combination is used in an individual case Ð on                    instance, on the basis of a factual situation
whether the general purpose for which the use of that                        independent of particular named persons, alleged by
vehicle or combination is intended is the carriage of goods                  one party and presumed to be true, on an application
by road?                                                                     by that party for a declaration that rights or legal
                                                                             relationships in the field of employment law, which
(1) Concerning the interpretation of Article 2(1) of the Agreement           according to the submissions of that party, which are
    of 9 February 1994 on the levying of charges for the use of
                                                                             presumed to be true, are of importance for at least
    certain roads by heavy commercial vehicles (Bundesgesetzblatt
    [Federal Gazette], Part II, p. 1768).                                    three employers or employees, do or do not exist?
(2) OJ L 279 of 12.11.1993, p. 32.
                                                                             If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative,
                                                                        2. Does Article 48 of the EC Treaty or any other
                                                                             provision of Community law, in particular Article 7 of
                                                                             Council Regulation No 1612/68 (1), preclude the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-                      material date of advancement for classification in the
gericht Köln, by order of that court of 8 May 1998 in                        relevant pay scheme of contractual teachers and
proceedings concerning an administrative fine imposed on                     contractual teaching assistants employed by the
                         Eckard Pörschke                                     respondent from being determined differently, in that
                                                                             the periods completed by such persons in employment,
                         (Case C-194/98)
                                                                             to at least one half of the extent prescribed for full-
                          (98/C 234/31)                                      time employees, in the service of an Austrian local
                                                                             authority or in a teaching post at an Austrian public
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       school, university, college or academy of the visual
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht                       arts or at an Austrian publicly recognised private
Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne) of 8 May 1998,                         school are treated as preceding in full the date on
received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1998, for a                         which those persons were engaged, whereas periods
preliminary ruling in the proceedings concerning an                          completed at comparable institutions of Member
administrative fine imposed on Eckard Pörschke, on the                       States are taken into account only with the consent of
following question (1):                                                      the Federal Minister for Financial Affairs, in full if


title: Judgment of the Court of 23 November 1999 in Case C-149/96: Portuguese Republic v Council of the European Union (Commercial policy — Access to the market in textile products — Products originating in India and Pakistan)

text:
C 47/8                    EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          19.2.2000
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 23 November 1999
                        of 18 November 1999
in Case C-275/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    in Case C-149/96: Portuguese Republic v Council of the
the Klagenævnet for Udbud): Unitron Scandinavia A/S,                                                 European Union (1)
3-S A/S, Danske Svineproducenters Serviceselskab v
      Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri (1)
                                                                             (Commercial policy — Access to the market in textile
(Public supply contracts — Directive 93/36/EEC — Award                          products — Products originating in India and Pakistan)
of public supply contracts by a body other than a contracting
                                authority)
                                                                                (2000/C 47/14)
                             (2000/C 47/13)
                     (Language of the case: Danish)                                           (Language of the case: Portuguese)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-275/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Klagenævnet
for Udbud (Procurement Review Board) (Denmark) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                    In Case C-149/96: Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes
court between Unitron Scandinavia A/S, 3-S A/S, Danske                       and C. Botelho Moniz) v Council of the European Union
Svineproducenters Serviceselskab and Ministeriet for Fødevar-                (Agents: S. Kyriakopoulou and I. Lopes Cardoso), supported
er, Landbrug og Fiskeri — on the interpretation of Article 2(2)              by the French Republic (Agents: C. de Salins and G. Mignot)
of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating                  and by the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1993                 M. de Pauw and F. de Sousa Fialho) — application for annul-
L 199, p. 1) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of:                       ment of Council Decision 96/386/EC of 26 February 1996
L. Sevón, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and                concerning the conclusion of Memoranda of Understanding
M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,                   between the European Community and the Islamic Republic
Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 November 1999, in                      of Pakistan and between the European Community and the
which it has ruled:                                                          Republic of India on arrangements in the area of market access
                                                                             for textile products (OJ 1996 L 153, p. 47) — the Court,
1. Article 2(2) of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993               composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Third
     coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts        and Sixth Chambers, acting for the President, D.A.O. Edward,
     is independent in scope from the provisions of Council Directive        L. Sevón and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kap-
     92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of               teyn (Rapporteur), C. Gulman, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch,
     procedures for the award of public service contracts.                   P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio,
                                                                             Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
2. Article 2(2) of Directive 93/36 must be interpreted as follows:           Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 November 1999, in
                                                                             which it:
     — It requires a contracting authority which grants to a body
          other than such a contracting authority special or exclusive
                                                                             1. Dismisses the application;
          rights to engage in a public service activity to require of that
          body, in relation to the public supply contracts which it
          awards to third parties in the context of that activity, that it   2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs;
          comply with the principle of non-discrimination on grounds
          of nationality.
                                                                             3. Orders the French Republic and the Commission of the European
     — It does not, however, require in those circumstances that the              Communities to bear their own costs.
          contracting authority demand that, in awarding such public
          supply contracts, the body in question comply with the
          tendering procedures laid down by Directive 93/36.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 233 of 10.8.1996.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 October 1999 in Case T-228/97: Irish Sugar plc v Commission of the European Communities (Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) - Dominant position and joint dominant position - Abuse - Fine)

text:
C 366/26                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  18.12.1999
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 7 October 1999
                                                                                of 26 October 1999
in Case T-228/97: Irish Sugar plc v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                           in Case T-51/98: Ann Ruth Burrill and Alberto Noriega
                                                                             Guerra v Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) — Domi-
nant position and joint dominant position — Abuse — Fine)
                                                                           (Officials — Working conditions — Maternity leave —
                           (1999/C 366/56)                                                  Shared between both parents)
                    (Language of the case: English)                                                (1999/C 366/57)
In Case T-228/97: Irish Sugar plc, established in Carlow,
Ireland, represented by Alexander Böhlke, of the Brussels and
Frankfurt am Main Bars, and Scott Crosby, Solicitor, with an                                 (Language of the case: French)
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor
Elvinger, 31 Rue d’Eich v Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Klaus Wiedner and Conor Quigley)
— application for the annulment of Commission Decision                     In Case T-51/98: Ann Ruth Burrill, an official of the Com-
97/624/EC of 14 May 1997 relating to a proceeding pursuant                 mission of the European Communities, and Alberto Noriega
to Article 86 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.621, 35.059/F-3 — Irish              Guerra, a member of the temporary staff of the Commission
Sugar plc) (OJ 1997 L 258, p. 1) or, in the alternative, for the           of the European Communities, residing at Rosières, Belgium,
annulment of the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 3 of               represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Marie-
the operative part of that decision, in so far as they contain             Ange Marx, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
instructions exceeding the scope of the abuses established in              Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue
points 5 and 6 of Article 1, and reduction of the fine imposed             de Cessange, v Commission of the European Communities
on the applicant by Article 2 of the operative part — the                  (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall), supported by
Court (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President,                  the Council of the European Union (Agents: Thérèse Blanchet
K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-           and Martin Bauer) — application for annulment of the
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 October               Commission’s decision of 24 February 1998 refusing the
1999, in which it:                                                         applicants’ request that part of the maternity leave provided
                                                                           for by Article 58 of the European Community Staff Regulations
1. Annuls Article 1(1) of the contested decision in so far as it finds     be shared between both parents such that, during the period
     that between 1986 and 1988 the applicant granted selectively          concerned, each parent would work half-time — the Court
     low prices to the customers of a French sugar importer;               of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke,
                                                                           President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio
                                                                           González, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment
2. Reduces the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 2 of the           on 26 October 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
     contested decision to EUR 7 883 326;
3. Dismisses the remainder of the action;                                  1. The application is rejected.
4. Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and two thirds of the
     Commission’s costs;                                                   2. Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.
5. Orders the Commission to pay one third of its own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ No C 184 of 13.6.1998.
(1) OJ No C 318 of 18.10.97.


title: Judgment of the Court of 20 March 2003 in Case C-3/00: Kingdom of Denmark v Commission of the European Communities (Approximation of laws — Directive 95/2/EC — Use of sulphites, nitrites and nitrates as food additives — Protection of health — Stricter national provisions — Conditions of application of Article 95(4) EC — Principle of the right to be heard)

text:
10.5.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 112/1
                                                                          I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             Denmark concerning the use of sulphites, nitrites and nitrates
                                                                                in foodstuffs in so far as it rejects those national provisions
                                                                                relating to the use of nitrites and nitrates in foodstuffs;
                         of 20 March 2003
                                                                             2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
in Case C-3/00: Kingdom of Denmark v Commission of                           3.    Orders the parties to pay their own costs;
                the European Communities (1)
                                                                             4.    Orders the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway to
(Approximation of laws — Directive 95/2/EC — Use of                                pay their own costs.
sulphites, nitrites and nitrates as food additives — Protection
of health — Stricter national provisions — Conditions of                     (1 ) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
application of Article 95(4) EC — Principle of the right to
                              be heard)
                          (2003/C 112/01)
                   (Language of the case: Danish)                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                  (Fifth Chamber)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                of 13 March 2003
                                                                             in Case C-156/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
In Case C-3/00, Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: J. Molde)                                    mission of the European Communities (1)
supported by Republic of Iceland (Agent: H. S. Kristjánsson)
and Kingdom of Norway (Agent: B. B. Ekeberg) v Commission                    (Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2000)
of the European Communities (Agents: M. Shotter and                          485 final — Remission of import duties — Inward pro-
H. C. Støvlbæk): Application for the annulment of Commission                 cessing — Lack of equivalence between Community products
Decision 1999/830/EC of 26 October 1999 on the national                                             and imported products)
provisions notified by the Kingdom of Denmark concerning
the use of sulphites, nitrites and nitrates in foodstuffs (OJ 1999                                      (2003/C 112/02)
L 329, p. 1), the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, A. La                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr
and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano,                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has                                         in the European Court Reports)
given a judgment on 20 March 2003, in which it:
1.    Annuls Commission Decision 1999/830/EC of 26 October                   In Case C-156/00, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: initially
      1999 on the national provisions notified by the Kingdom of             M. A. Fierstra, and, subsequently, the former together with


title: Action brought on 17 April 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-124/96)

text:
No C 158/ 10            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       1 . 6 . 96
Appeal brought on 15 April 1996 by Susan Ryan-Sheridan                   gericht ( Higher Labour Court) Hamburg — Third Chamber
against the judgment delivered on 15 February 1996 by the                — of 29 March 1996 , which was received at the Court
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                      Registry on 15 April 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
European Communities in Case T-589/93 between Susan                      dispute between Mrs Sultan Bulut and Deutsche Bundespost
Ryan-Sheridan and European Foundation for the                            on the following questions :
        Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
                          Case C-1 19/96 P                               1 . Is Article 1 ( 1 ) of Directive 77/ 178/EEC ( ') to be
                                                                             interpreted as meaning that there is also a transfer of
                             ( 96/C 158/22 )
                                                                             part of a business to another employer within the
                                                                             meaning of that provision in the case where an
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 February                      undertaking gradually transfers the cleaning of its
1 996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                 business premises, hitherto carried out by its own
the European Communities in Case T-589/93 between                            employees , which was so organized that each of those
Susan Ryan-Sheridan and European Foundation for the                          employees was allocated a specific area of its business
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions was                             premises to clean, in such a way that each time a cleaner
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                          retires or is for other reasons no longer able , either
Communities on 15 April 1996 by Susan Ryan-Sheridan,                         temporarily or permanently, to perform her cleaning
represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liège Bar, with an                  work, her cleaning area is handed over to an outside
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                         undertaking for the purposes of cleaning ?
Evelyne Korn , Rue de Nassau .
                                                                             Does the reply to that question depend on whether the
The appellant claims that the Court should :                                 gradual transfer to an outside undertaking of entire
— annul the judgment being appealed against ('),                             business premises or at least of a portion of business
                                                                             premises consisting of several cleaning areas is
— itself give judgment in the dispute and annul the                          uniformly made to one and the same undertaking ?
      decisions contested by way of the action which she
      brought before the Court of First Instance, on the basis           2 . If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative : is the
      of the pleas and evidence which she submitted to                       first sentence of Article 4 ( 1 ) of Directive 77/87/EEC to
      it ( 2 ),                                                              be interpreted as meaning that notice of termination
                                                                             with an offer of new contractual terms for the purpose
— order the defendant to pay to her Bfr 500 000 by way of                    of reducing the working time of a cleaner is not
      damages,                                                               permissible under that provision if it has been served on
                                                                             the ground that employment to the previous extent is no
— order the defendant to pay the costs of both proceedings,                  longer possible because of an organizational decision,
      including the costs of the procedure for interim relief.               and if the cleaner could, had it not been for the decision
                                                                             to award the work to an outside firm within the meaning
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              of the first question, continue to be employed for the
                                                                             number of hours worked previously by having work
— misuse of powers or at least lack of procedural                            allocated to her to the full extent or additionally which
      impartiality of the Recruitment Committee ,                            in itself, because of the decision to transfer all cleaning
      abuse of process;                                                      areas that fall free, is no longer to be carried out by the
                                                                             undertaking's own employees ?
— invalidity of the internal notice,
      breach of the principle of equal treatment;
                                                                         (') OJ No L 61 , 1977, p . 26 .
— manifest error of assessment,
      breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of
      officials .
(') OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 , p . 14 .
( 2 ) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 , p . 18 .
                                                                         Action brought on 17 April 1996 by the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                                ( Case C-124/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 158/24 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeits
gericht Hamburg by order of that court of 29 March 1996 in
the dispute between Mrs Sultan Bulut and Deutsche                        An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                               Bundespost                                the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         17 April 1 996 by the Commission of the European
                           ( Case C-121 /96 )
                                                                         Communities , represented by Enrico Traversa and
                             ( 96/C 158/23 )                             Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz, of its Legal Service, acting
                                                                         as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
European Communities by order of the Landesarbeits                      Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- 1 . 6 . 96             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 158/ 11
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            quantity had been compiled correctly and had formed
                                                                        the basis of the purchaser's calculation of the additional
                                                                        levy ?
1 , declare that, by providing that VAT exemption for
      services closely linked to sport or physical education
      applies only to private bodies whose membership fees do           Or does that phrase refer only to the amount derived from
      not exceed a specified amount, the Kingdom of Spain               the figures, whether correct or not, declared by the
      has infringed Article 13 ( A ) ( 1 ) ( m ) of the Sixth VAT       purchaser and forming the basis of the calculation of the
      Directive ( 77/388/EEC ) ( M ;                                    additional levy ?
                                                                        If the first interpretation is correct, the question arises
2 , order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                       whether the entire amount of additional levy lawfully due is
                                                                        payable on the date specified in the Regulation ( at that time
                                                                        30 June ), so that, in the event of part payment resulting from
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         the purchaser's figures being too low, the person liable to
                                                                        pay the additional levy ( in Germany the milk producer ) must
The restriction imposed by the Spanish Law on                           pay, from 1 July of that year, interest charged under national
exemptions ( 2 ) does not appear in the wording of the Sixth            law on the balance .
Directive and must therefore be considered to be an
infringement of Article 13 . The Member States cannot make              (') OJ No L 139 , 4 . 6 . 1988 , p . 12 .
the exemption provided for in Article 13 ( m ) subject to
conditions other than those laid down in Article 13 ( 2 ).
Neither does the Spanish VAT legislation observe the aim set
down in the eighth recital of the preamble to the Sixth
Directive, since the imposition of any condition not
provided for in Article 13 is contrary to the aim of drawing
up a common list of exemptions so that the Communities'
own resources may be collected in a uniform manner in all               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
the Member States . The Spanish Law thus infringes not only             Genova — Prima Sezione Civile — by order of that court of
Article 1 3 of the Sixth Directive but also the objectives of the       1 February 1996 in the case of Trinity Alimentari Italia SPA
                                                                                v. Ministero delle Finanze dello Stato
common system of VAT.
                                                                                ( Case C-128/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 158/26 )
(') Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977,
      P - 1 ).
( 2 ) Law No 37/ 1992 as amended by Law No 42/1994 .                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
                                                                        Genova — Prima Sezione Civile — ( District Court, Genoa ,
                                                                        First Civil Section ) of 1 February 1996 , received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 22 April 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                        case of Trinity Alimentari Italia SPA v . Ministero delle
                                                                        Finanze dello Stato on questions identical to those in Joined
                                                                        Cases C-47/95 and others ( M.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches
Finanzgericht by order of that court of 26 March 1996 in the             (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 5 .
case of Hartmut Simon v. Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am
                                Main
                         ( Case C-125 /96 )
                           ( 96/C 158/25 )
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-82/95 (*)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Hessisches                                                  ( 96/C 158/27 )
 Finanzgericht ( Finance Court, Hesse ) of 26 March 1996 ,
which was received at the Court Registry on 18 April 1996 ,              By order of 9 February 1996 the President of the Fifth
 for a preliminary ruling in the case of Hartmut Simon v.                Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
 Hauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office ) Frankfurt am                  Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
 Main, on the following questions :                                      C-82/95 : Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         v. Hellenic Republic .
 In Article 15 ( 4 ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
 No 1546/88 of 3 June 1988 ( 1 ) is 'levy amount due' to be              (') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
 interpreted as the amount of additional levy on milk that
 would be payable if the figures used to determine the levies
 payable on deliveries in excess of the delivery reference


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Dijon by judgment of that court of 24 March 1998 in the case of CRT France International SA v Directeur Régional des Impôts de Bourgogne (Case C-109/98)

text:
30.5.98                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 166/11
          (i) is the test for determining the amount of input                communicated to the Commission and to the Court of
               tax that is deductible any different as between               Justice, so that all the evidence may be made available
               Article 17(2), (3) and (5) (and, if so, in which              on an equal footing.
               respects is it different); and
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments:
          (ii) is such a person entitled to deduct all the input
               tax charged in respect of an input on the                 Ð Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
               ground that the input was utilised as a                       expectations;
               consequence of making a transaction falling
               within Article 17(3)(c)?                                  Ð Breach of the principle of equality of arms, by virtue
                                                                             of the piecemeal approach to the evidence;
(1) First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the           Ð Breach of the principle of equality of treatment,
    harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning
                                                                             whereby comparable situations are not to be treated
    turnover taxes (OJ 71 of 14.4.1967, p. 1301 (SE SER1 67
    p. 14)).                                                                 differently and different situations are not to be
(2) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                 treated alike;
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:                   Ð Violation of the case-law established by Community
    uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).               law.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Appeal brought on 14 April 1998 by Smanor SA, Hubert                     Administratif de Dijon by judgment of that court of
SeÂgaud and Monique SeÂgaud against the order made on                    24 March 1998 in the case of CRT France International
16 February 1998 by the Second Chamber of the Court of                        SA v Directeur ReÂgional des Impôts de Bourgogne
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                                              (Case C-109/98)
T-182/97 between, on the one hand, Smanor SA, Hubert
                                                                                (98/C 166/18)
SeÂgaud and Monique SeÂgaud and, on the other, the
          Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                        (Case C-103/98 P)                                European Communities by a judgment of the First
                           (98/C 166/17)                                 Chamber of the Tribunal Administratif de Dijon
                                                                         (Administrative Court, Dijon), of 24 March 1998, which
                                                                         was received at the Court Registry on 15 April 1998, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of CRT France International
An appeal against the order made on 16 February 1998
                                                                         SA v Directeur ReÂgional des Impôts de Bourgogne on the
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                         following question:
the European Communities in Case T-182/97 between, on
the one hand, Smanor SA, Hubert SeÂgaud and Monique                      Whether the provisions of Articles 9, 12 and 95 of the
SeÂgaud and, on the other, the Commission of the                         Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the European
European Communities was brought before the Court of                     Economic Community preclude the national authorities
Justice of the European Communities on 14 April 1998 by                  from imposing on manufacturers, importers and persons
Smanor SA, Hubert SeÂgaud and Monique SeÂgaud,                           making supplies in France of transmitting/receiving sets
represented by Laurence Roques, of the Val de Marne Bar,                 operating on two-way channels a tax, the rules for which
with an address for service at 9 Rue du GeÂneÂral de                     are laid down by Article 302 bis (X) of the Code GeÂneÂral
Larminat, CreÂteil.                                                      des Impôts.
The appellants claim that the Court should:
Ð rule that the order made by the Court of First Instance
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-50/97 (1)
     on 16 February 1998 is vitiated by a manifest error of
     assessment;                                                                                (98/C 166/19)
                                                                         By order of 14 October 1997, the President of the Court
Ð rule that the Commission made an error of assessment                   of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
     in the conclusions contained in its letter of 21 May                removal from the register of Case C-50/97: (Reference for
     1997;                                                               a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank
                                                                         te Almelo): Jan Blauw and Others v Gavema BV.
Ð grant the appellants' application for an order that the                (1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.
     documents in the Smanor case held by the French
     authorities in their administrative archives be


C 84/54               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  6.4.2002
       Removal from the register of Case C-48/01 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-119/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 84/95)                                                    (2002/C 84/98)
By order of 23 October 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                  By order of 22 October 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-48/01: Commission of the
                                                                  from the register of Case C-119/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland.
                                                                  European Communities v Finland.
(1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-51/01 and
                           C-52/01 (1)
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-244/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 84/96)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/99)
By order of 6 November 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal           By order of 19 November 2001 the President of the Court of
from the register of Joined Cases C-51/01 and C-52/01:            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Commission of the European Communities v Beta Television          from the register of Case C-244/01: Commission of the
SpA (Videomusic/TMC2) and Internazionale SpA.                     European Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                        (1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-118/01 (1)
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-336/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 84/97)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/100)
By order of 19 November 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  By order of 19 November 2001 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-118/01: Commission of the
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                  from the register of Case C-336/01: Commission of the
                                                                  European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 26 May 1998 in Case T-177/96: Mario Costacurta v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Remuneration - Weighting - Special derogations applying to officials posted to non-member countries - Contrary to the principles of the equivalence of purchasing power and equal treatment)

text:
C 209/38             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   4.7.98
Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service        1. Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum
in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de                       of ECU 400 by way of compensation for
Cessange, against the Commission of the European                        maladministration.
Communities (Agent: Julian Currall) Ð application for
annulment of a decision to reassign the applicant dated
20 July 1995, an express decision of 16 February 1996               2. Dismisses the remainder of the action.
dismissing the complaint lodged by the applicant against
that decision, an implied decision dismissing the claim for
damages submitted by the applicant on 19 October 1995               3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to
and, in so far as necessary, a decision of 26 June 1996 not             pay the costs incurred by the applicant up to date of
to uphold in its entirety the complaint lodged by the                   receipt by him of the decision rejecting his complaint.
applicant against the last-mentioned decision Ð the Court               The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Azizi,                incurred as from the date of receipt of the decision
President, R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; H.               rejecting his complaint.
Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 May 1998, the
operative part of which is as follows:                              (1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.
1. The actions are dismissed.
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
( ) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996 and OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
 1
                                                                                of 26 May 1998
                                                                    in Case T-177/96: Mario Costacurta v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                    (Officials Ð Remuneration Ð Weighting Ð Special
                                                                    derogations applying to officials posted to non-member
                                                                    countries Ð Contrary to the principles of the equivalence
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   of purchasing power and equal treatment)
                      of 12 May 1998                                                        (98/C 209/81)
in Case T-159/96: Rüdiger Wenk v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Officials Ð Recruitment Ð Post of Head of a
Commission delegation Ð Notice of vacancy Ð Legality
Ð Decision rejecting an application for a post Ð                    In Case T-177/96: Mario Costacurta, an official of the
Obligation to provide a statement of reasons Ð                      Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Comparative examination of the merits of the candidates             Luxembourg, represented by Nicolas Decker, of the
Ð Discretion of the appointing authority Ð Protection of            Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
legitimate expectations Ð Duty to have regard for the               Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 16 Avenue Marie-
              welfare and interests of officials)                   TheÂreÁse v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                    (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Florence Clotuche) Ð
                        (98/C 209/80)                               application for (1) annulment of the Commission's
                                                                    decision of 22 July 1996 refusing to apply to the applicant
                                                                    the weightings for Zaïre in respect of the period of his
               (Language of the case: French)                       assignment to the Commission's delegation in that country
                                                                    and (2) compensation for the damage thereby caused Ð
                                                                    the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
In Case T-159/96: Rüdiger Wenk, an official of the                  J. Azizi, President, R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger,
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                 Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the
Caracas, represented by Nicolas LhoeÈst, of the Brussels            Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 1998, the operative
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               part of which is as follows:
office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Julian
Currall and Christine Berardis-Kayser) Ð application for            1. The application is dismissed.
annulment of the decision of the Commission of
2 February 1996 rejecting the application by the applicant
for the post of Head of the Commission's delegation in              2. Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.
San JoseÂ Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: J. Azizi, President, and R. García-Valdecasas          (1) OJ C 9, 11.1.1997.
and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 May 1998,
in which it: