title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 21 November 1996 in Case T-53/96: Syndicat des producteurs de viande bovine de la coordination rurale and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Common agricultural policy - Emergency measures for protection of public health - Action for damages - Unforeseeable damage - Inadmissibility)

text:
No C 9/ 16            1 EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       11 . 1 . 97
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               with an address for service in Luxemburg at the Chambers
                       of 19 November 1996                              of Catherine Dessoy, 31 , Rue d'Eich, against the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
in    Case    T-272/94:         Claude Brûlant     v.   European        Gianluigi Valsesia ) — application for annulment of the
                            Parliament ( l )                            decision of 6 September 1994, pursuant to Article 60 of
         (Officials — Promotion — Abuse ofprocess)
                                                                        the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European
                                                                        Communities, as confirmed by the decision of the
                             ( 97/C 9/28 )                              Commission of 3 April 1994 rejecting the applicant's
                                                                        complaint — the Court of First Instance ( Second
                                                                        Chamber), composed of H. Kirschner, President, C. W.
                 (Language of the case: French)                         Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                        Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 November 1996, the
In Case T-272/94 : Claude Brulant, an official of the                   operative part of which is as follows:
European Parliament, residing in Compiegne ( France ),
represented by Sylvie Deniniolle, of the Paris Bar, with an             1 . The application is dismissed.
address for service in Luxemburg at the Chambers of
Aloyse May, 31 Grand'-rue, against the European
Parliament ( Agents: Manfred Peter and Jannis Pantalis ) —              2 . The parties shall bear their own costs.
application for annulment of the decision of the
Parliament of 30 September 1993 relating to the filling of              (M OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 , p . 23 .
the post advertised in vacancy Notice No 7262 ( Post II/A/
 1933 ), the decision of 15 November 1993 rejecting the
applicant's candidature and the decision of 28 April 1994,
expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint — the Court
of First Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of C. P.
Briët, President, B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges; H.                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 19 November 1996,
                                                                                of 21 November 1996
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                        in Case T-53/96: Syndicat des producteurs de viande
                                                                        bovine       de la    coordination         rurale and Others      v.
 1 . The decision of the Parliament of 30 September 1993
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities 0 )
     relating to the filling of the post advertised in vacancy
     notice No 7262 (Post IIIA/1933) is annulled.                        (Common agricultural policy — Emergency measures for
                                                                        protection of public health — Action for damages —
                                                                                Unforeseeable damage — Inadmissibility)
2 . The decision rejecting the applicant 's candidature to
     that post is also annulled.                                                                    ( 97/C 9/30 )
 3 . The Parliament is ordered to pay all the costs.                                     (Language of the case: French)
 (!) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 , p . 31 .                             In Case T-53/96 : Syndicat des producteurs de viande
                                                                         bovine de la coordination rurale, having its headquarters
                                                                         at l'Isle Jourdain ( France ), Syndicat des producteurs de lait
                                                                        de la coordination rurale, having its headquarters at l'Isle
                                                                        Jourdain ( France ), Philippe de Villiers, residing at
                                                                        Aubretières ( France ), represented by Alexandre Varaut, of
                                                                        the Paris Bar, against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities        ( Agents:       Gerard Berscheid, James
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Macdonald Flett and Ulrich Wölker ) — application for an
                       of 20 November 1996
                                                                         award of damages pursuant to Article 178 and the second
                                                                         paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty — the Court of
 in Case T-135/95 : 'Z' v. Commission of the European                    First Instance ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. García-
                           Communities ( J )                             Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H.
                                                                        Jung, Registrar, has given an order on 21 November 1996 ,
 (Officials — Actions for annulment — Irregular absence                  in which it :
 from service — Articles 59 and 60 of the Staff Regulations
        — Medical certificates — Incapacity for work)
                                                                         1 . Dismisses the application as inadmissible.
                              ( 97/C 9/29 )
                                                                         2 . Orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay the
                  (Language of the case: French)                              costs .
 In Case T-135/95 : 'Z', an official of the Commission of                (!) OJ No C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 , p . 35 .
 the European Communities, residing at Torredelmar,
 Spain, represented by J. F. Nerven, of the Brussels Bar,


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 November 1999 in Case T-102/98: Christina Papadeas v Committee of the Regions of the European Union (Officials — Internal competition — Non-admission to the oral tests — Assessment by the Selection Board — Principle of non-discrimination — Principle of sound administration and the duty to have due regard for the welfare of officials)

text:
8.1.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 6/21
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 28 October 1999                                                       of 9 November 1999
in Case T-210/95: European Fertilizer Manufacturers’
 Association (EFMA) v Council of the European Union (1)                   in Case T-102/98: Christina Papadeas v Committee of the
                                                                                Regions of the European Union (1)
(Anti-dumping duties — Elimination of injury — Target
       price — Profit margin on the costs of production)                  (Officials — Internal competition — Non-admission to the
                                                                          oral tests — Assessment by the Selection Board — Principle
                                                                          of non-discrimination — Principle of sound administration
                                                                           and the duty to have due regard for the welfare of officials)
                           (2000/C 6/36)
                                                                                (2000/C 6/37)
                    (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-210/85: European Fertilizer Manufacturers’ Associ-                                 (Language of the case: French)
ation (EFMA), established in Zurich (Switzerland), represented
by Dominique Voillemot and Olivier Prost, of the Paris Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Carlos Zeyen, 67 Rue Ermesinde, supported by French Repub-                In Case T-102/98: Christina Papadeas, a former member of the
lic (Agents: Catherine de Salins, Gautier Mignot, and, in the             temporary staff of the Committee of the Regions, residing in
oral procedure, Sujiro Seam) v Council of the European Union              Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden, and Laura
(Agents: initially by Yves Cretien and Antonio Tanca, then                Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
solely by Mr Tanca, assisted by Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg                Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 2-4 Rue
Berrisch), supported by Commission of the European Com-                   Beck, v Committee of the Regions of the European Union
munities (Agent: Nicholas Khan) — application for the annul-              (Agents: Jordi Garcia-Petit and Denis Waelbroeck) — appli-
ment of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2022/95 of                cation for annulment of the decision of the Selection Board in
16 August 1995 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on                 Internal Competition C/01/97 not to admit the applicant to
imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ                     the oral tests in that competition — the Court of First
1995 L 198, p. 1) — the Court (Second Chamber, Extended                   Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President,
Composition), composed of: A. Potocki, President, K. Lenaerts,            R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio González,
C.W. Bellamy, J. Azizi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; A. Mair,                  Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgement on 9 No-
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                 vember 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
28 October 1999, in which it:
                                                                          1. The decision of the Selection Board in Internal Competition
1. Dismisses the application;                                                  C/01/97 not to admit the applicant to the oral tests is annulled.
2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay the costs of        2. The Committee of the Regions is ordered to pay the costs in their
     the Council. The Commission and the French Republic shall bear            entirety.
     their own costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
(1) OJ C 31 of 3.2.1996.


title: Case C-494/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Dixons Retail plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Directive 2006/112/EC — Value added tax — Supply of goods — Concept — Fraudulent use of a bank card)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Dixons Retail plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-494/12) (1)

   (Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax - Supply of goods - Concept - Fraudulent use of a bank card)
   2014/C 39/11
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Dixons Retail plc

      Respondents: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — Interpretation of Articles 14(1) and 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Concept of ‘supply of goods’ — Supply following a purchase made by means of the unauthorised and fraudulent use of a credit card

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 2(1), 5(1) and 11A(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment and Articles 2(1)(a), 14(1) and 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the physical transfer of goods to a purchaser who fraudulently uses a bank card as a means of payment constitutes a ‘supply of goods’ within the meaning of Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Directive 77/388 and Articles 2(1)(a) and 14(1) of Directive 2006/112 and that, in the context of such a transfer, the payment made by a third party, under an agreement concluded between it and the supplier of those goods by which the third party has undertaken to pay the supplier for the goods sold by the latter to purchasers using such a card as a means of payment, constitutes ‘consideration’ within the meaning of Article 11A(1)(a) of Directive 77/388 and Article 73 of Directive 2006/112.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 20 March 1997 in Case C-96/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Right of residence - Council Directives 90/364/EEC and 90/365/EEC)

text:
10 . 5 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 142/5
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Fifth Chamber)                                                      ( Sixth Chamber)
                        of 20 March 1997
                                                                                of 20 March 1997
in      Case C-96/95 : Commission of the European
        Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (')                in Case C-295/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                      the Circuit Court, County of Dublin ): Jackie Farrell v.
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                                          James Long (')
Right of residence — Council Directives 90/364/EEC and
                            90/365/EEC)                               (Brussels Convention — Article 5 (2) — Definition of
                                                                                'maintenance creditor')
                           ( 97/C 142/09 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/10 )
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-295/95 : reference to the Court under the
In Case C-96/95 : Commission of the European                          Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the
Communities ( Agents : Pieter van Nuffel and Horstpeter               Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968
Kreppel ) v. Federal Republic of Germany ( Agents: Ernst              on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil
Roder and Bernd Kloke ) — application for a declaration               and Commercial Matters from the Circuit Court, County
that, by not adopting within the prescribed period, or by             of Dublin, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
not communicating to the Commission forthwith, the                    pending before that court between Jackie Farrell and
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary             James Long — on the interpretation of Article 5 ( 2 ) of the
for transposing into national law Council Directive 90/               abovementioned Convention of 27 September 1968 ( OJ
365/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence for                 No L 304, 30 . 10 . 1978 , p. 36 ), as amended by the
employees and self-employed persons who have ceased                   Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
their occupational activity ( OJ No L 180, 13 . 7. 1990,              Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
p. 28 ) and Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990              Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( OJ No L 304, 30 . 10 .
on the right of residence ( OJ No L 180, 13 . 7. 1990,                 1978 , p. 1 and — in the amended version — p. 77 ) and
p. 26 ), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to                by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession
fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court                of the Hellenic Republic ( OJ No L 388 , 31 . 12 . 1982,
 ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: L. Sevon, President of the           p. 1 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F.
First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber               Mancini, President of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris
 ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.                   ( Rapporteur), G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and R.
Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate              Schintgen, Judges; P. Leger, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl,
 General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on               Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
 20 March 1997, in which it:                                          judgment on 20 March 1997, in which it has ruled:
 1 . declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed
      period the laws, regulations and administrative                  The first limb of Article 5 (2) of the Convention of
      provisions necessary for transposing into national law          27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement
       Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the             of Judgments - in Civil and Commercial Matters, as
       right of residence, or Council Directive 90/365/EEC of          amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
       28 June 1990 on the right of residence for employees            Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
      and self-employed persons who have ceased their                   United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
       occupational activity, the Federal Republic of                  and by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
       Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under              Accession of the Hellenic Republic, must be interpreted as
       Article 5 of those two Directives;
                                                                       meaning that the term 'maintenance creditor' covers any
                                                                      person applying for maintenance, including a person
                                                                       bringing a maintenance action for the first time.
 2 . orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
       costs .
                                                                       C ) OJ No C 286, 28 . 10. 1995 .
 (M OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .


title: Case T-60/03: Action brought on 20 February 2003 by Regione Siciliana against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 101/50               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
Action brought on 20 February 2003 by Regione Siciliana                    a change in the intended use of the construction, that reason
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       not being included in Article 24 and inapplicable in any event
                                                                           on the facts of the present case.
                          (Case T-60/03)                                   —     The applicant also alleges that the Commission abused its
                                                                                powers by distorting the facts in that the contested
                                                                                decision cancelled the Community contribution without
                         (2003/C 101/86)                                         a proper legal basis and in the absence of factual
                                                                                circumstances such as might warrant cancellation.
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                         —     The applicant also alleges that the Commission gave an
                                                                                insufficient statement of reasons on a decisive point in as
                                                                                much as it found irregularities and problems in the
                                                                                financial management of the project which, however,
                                                                                have no relevance to the cancellation of the Community
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        contribution.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 February 2003 by Regione
Siciliana, represented by Giacomo Aiello (Avvocato dello                   (1 ) OJ L 193 of 31.7.1993, p. 20.
Stato).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 11 December 2002
      (C(2002)4905) concerning the cancellation of the contri-
      bution of the European Regional Development Fund                     Action brought on 18 February 2003 by Irwin Industrial
      (ERDF) towards an infrastructure investment of no less               Tool Company against the Office for Harmonization in
      than ECU 15 million in Italy (region: Sicily) and the                                       the Internal Market
      recovery of the advance paid by the Commission as part
      of that contribution, and
                                                                                (Case T-61/03)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 101/87)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
The present action is directed against the cancellation of the
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) contribution of                  Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
LIT 94 940 620 056 towards the creation of a reservoir by                  European Communities on 18 February 2003 by Irwin
                                                                           Industrial Tool Company, Hoffman Estates, USA, represented
means of damming the Gibbesi River in order to ensure a
reliable water supply to the industrial centre proposed for the            by Mr Graham Farrington, Solicitor.
Commune of Licata and to improve irrigation to an area of
approximately one thousand hectares.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
In support of its application, the applicant argues infringement           —     annul the Decision of the Defendant’s Third Board of
of Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88, as amended by                      Appeal of 20 November 2002; and
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993
amending Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 laying down pro-                      —     order the Defendant to remit the application to its
visions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as                          Examination Division for re-examination of Community
regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural               Trade Mark number 1760867 and/or order the Defendant
Funds between themselves and with the operations of the                          to remit the application to its Board of Appeal to consider
European Investment Bank and the other existing financial                        the appeal under the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) of
instruments ( 1) in that the Commission’s decision to cancel the                 Community Trade Mark Regulation EC No 40/94 which
contribution was based on the assumption that there had been                     it declined to do on the original appeal.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 2 April 1998 in Case C-321/95 P: Stichting Greenpeace Council (Greenpeace International) and Others v. Commission of the European Communities, supported by Kingdom of Spain (Appeal - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them)

text:
4.7.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 209/3
Wales for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending          Philippe Sands and Mark Hoskins, Barristers, instructed
before that court between The Queen and Commissioners              by Leigh, Day & Co., Solicitors, with an address for
of Customs and Excise, ex parte EMU Tabac SARL, The                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jean-Paul
Man in Black Limited and John Cunningham; intervener:              Noesen, 18 Rue des Glacis Ð appeal against the order of
Imperial Tobacco Ltd Ð on the interpretation of Council            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general             (First Chamber) of 9 August 1995 in Case T-585/93
arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on            Greenpeace and Others v. Commission [1995] ECR
the holding, movement and monitoring of such products              II-2205, seeking to have that order set aside, the other
(OJ L 76 of 23.3.1992, p. 1), as amended by Council                party to the proceedings being Commission of the
Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992 (OJ L 390 of              European Communities (Agent: Peter Oliver), supported
31.12.1992, p. 124) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.                by Kingdom of Spain (Agents: Alberto JoseÂ Navarro
Rodríguez Iglesias, President, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet           GonzaÂlez and Gloria Calvo Díaz) Ð the Court, composed
and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini,          of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), J.-          H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers),
P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges;            G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; D.                       P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                 Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges;
Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 April 1998, in which          G. Cosmas, Advocate General; for the Registrar, has given
it has ruled:                                                      a judgment on 2 April 1998, in which it:
                                                                   1. Dismisses the appeal.
Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the
general arrangements for products subject to excise duty
and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such
products, as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC               2. Orders the appellants to pay the costs.
of 14 December 1992, must be interpreted as not
precluding the levying of excise duty in Member State A
on goods released for consumption in Member State B,               3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
where the goods were acquired from a company, X, for
the use of private individuals in Member State A, through          (1) OJ C 315 of 25.11.1995.
a company, Y, acting in return for payment as agent for
those individuals, and where transportation of the goods
from Member State B to Member State A was also
arranged by company Y on behalf of those individuals and
effected by a professional carrier charging for his services.
(1) OJ C 299 of 11.11.1995.                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 2 April 1998
                                                                   in Case C-367/95 P: Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities v. Chambre Syndicale Nationale des Entre-
                                                                   prises de Transport de Fonds et Valeurs (Sytraval) and
                                                                                Brink's France SARL (1)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                (Appeal Ð State aid Ð Complaint by a competitor Ð
                                                                   Commission's obligations concerning the investigation of a
                       of 2 April 1998                                complaint and the provision of reasons for rejecting it)
in Case C-321/95 P: Stichting Greenpeace Council                                           (98/C 209/05)
(Greenpeace International) and Others v. Commission of
the European Communities, supported by Kingdom of
                           Spain (1)                                              (Language of the case: French)
(Appeal Ð Natural or legal persons Ð Measures of direct
              and individual concern to them)
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                        (98/C 209/04)                                       published in the European Court Reports)
               (Language of the case: English)                     In Case C-367/95 P: Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities (Agents: Jean-Louis Dewost, Jean-Paul
                                                                   Keppenne and Michel Nolin), supported by French
                                                                   Republic (Agents: Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc
In Case C-321/95 P: Stichting Greenpeace Council                   Belorgey), Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst
(Greenpeace International) and Others, represented by              Röder and Bernd Kloke), Kingdom of Spain (Agent:


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 13 February 1998 in Case T-275/97: Guérin Automobiles EURL v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
11.4.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 113/15
residing at Luxembourg, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,            the Commission's decision published on 9 April 1996 in
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                 so far as it refuses to promote the applicant to grade C 1
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson, 30 rue de            in the 1996 promotions exercise Ð the Court of First
Cessange, v. Court of Justice of the European                       Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh,
Communities (Agent: Timothy Millett) Ð application for              President, K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor,
annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of                Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 5 March
5 December 1995 appointing the applicant an official and            1998, in which it:
assigning her to the post of typist, in so far as that
decision classified her in grade C 4, step 3 Ð the Court of
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.                     1. dismissed the application,
Kalogeropoulos, President, and C. W. Bellamy and J.
Pirrung, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 4 March 1998, in which it:                  2. ordered the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
1. annuls the decision of the Court of Justice of
    5 December 1995 appointing the applicant to the post
    of typist in grade C 4, in so far as it classifies her in
    step 3 of that grade,
2. orders the Court of Justice to pay the costs, apart
    from those incurred by the Council of the European                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    Union and those incurred by the applicant as a result                                of 13 February 1998
    of the Council's intervention,
                                                                          in Case T-275/97: GueÂrin Automobiles EURL v.
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities (1)
3. orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay              (Action for annulment Ð Time limit for bringing
    the costs incurred by the applicant as a result of its                    proceedings Ð Manifest inadmissibility)
    intervention.
                                                                                (98/C 113/38)
(1) OJ C 354, 23.11.1996.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    In Case T-275/97: GueÂrin Automobiles EURL, a company
                                                                    in judicial liquidation, established at AlencËon (France),
                                                                    acting in the person of Xavier LemeÂe, liquidator,
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           represented by Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris and
                                                                    Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                      (Fourth Chamber)                              the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 rue BeÂatrix de Bourbon,
                       of 5 March 1998                              v. Commission of the European Communities Ð
                                                                    application for annulment of Decision SG(97) D/3183 of
      in Case T-221/96: Immacolata Manzo-Tafaro v.                  the Commission of 25 April 1997 rejecting GueÂrin
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                   Automobiles' complaint concerning the standard-form
                                                                    dealership agreement for Nissan motor vehicles in France
(Officials Ð Refusal to promote an official Ð                       and the application thereof (Case IV-35.095 GueÂrin/
Consideration of comparative merits Ð Age and seniority             Nissan France) Ð the Court of First Instance (Second
                  taken into consideration)                         Chamber), composed of A. Kalogeropoulos, President, and
                        (98/C 113/37)                               C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
                                                                    made an order on 13 February 1998, the operative part of
                                                                    which is as follows:
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    1. the application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible,
In Case T-221/96: Immacolata Manzo-Tafaro, official
working for the Commission of the European
                                                                    2. the applicant is ordered to bear its own costs.
Communities, residing at Brussels, represented by Lucas
Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christian Kremer, 8Ð10                (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
rue Mathias Hardt, against the Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: Julian Currall and
Christine Berardis-Kayser) Ð application for annulment of


title: Case C-18/03 P: Appeal brought on 17 January 2003 by Vela Srl and Tecnagrind SL against the judgment delivered on 7 November 2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-141/99, T-142/99, T-150/99 and T-151/99 between Vela Srl and Tecnagrind SL and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 70/6                   EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             22.3.2003
The Commission submits, therefore, in reliance on the detailed             II.     a) Is Article 7(5) of the Electricity Directive ( 1) to be
legal submissions in its appeal in case T-5/02, that the                               interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of dis-
contested judgment should be annulled in the event that the                            crimination contained therein is restricted to the
appeal against the Court of First Instance’s judgment in case T-                       requirement that the system operator must not draw
5/02 is successful.                                                                    any distinction in granting access to the system by
                                                                                means of technical rules?
( 1) OJ C 156, 29.06.2002, p. 27.                                                     If so, is an allocation method relating to the cross-
( 2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on                       border transport capacity of electricity to be regarded
     the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395,
                                                                                as a technical rule within the meaning of the abov-
     30.12.1989, p. 1).
( 3) Commission Decision C (2001) 3345 final of 30 October 2001                       ementioned provision?
     declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common
     market, Case No COMP/M.2416 Tetra Laval/Sidel.                               b) In the event that the allocation method must be
                                                                                regarded as a technical rule or in the event that
                                                                                Article 7(5) of the Electricity Directive is not limited
                                                                                to technical rules, is a rule under which preferential
                                                                                cross-border transport capacity is made available for
                                                                                contracts concluded in connection with a particular
                                                                                public task compatible with the prohibition of dis-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
                                                                                crimination contained in that article?
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgemnt of that Court
of 13 November 2002 in the proceedings between 1. Ver-
eniging voor Energie, Milieu en Water, 2. Amsterdam
                                                                           (1 ) Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
Power Exchange Spotmarket B.V., and 3. N.V. Eneco and                           of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal
Directeur van de Dienst uitvoering en toezicht energie;                         market in electricity (OJ L 27 of 30.01.1997, p. 20).
Joined party: B.V. Netherlands Elektriciteit Administratie-
                               kantoor
                           (Case C-17/03)
                           (2003/C 70/09)
                                                                           Appeal brought on 17 January 2003 by Vela Srl and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     Tecnagrind SL against the judgment delivered on 7 Nov-
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep                 ember 2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First
voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and                 Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
Industry) of 13 November 2002, received at the Court                       T-141/99, T-142/99, T-150/99 and T-151/99 between Vela
Registry on 16 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the               Srl and Tecnagrind SL and the Commission of the
proceedings between 1. Vereniging voor Energie, Milieu en                                        European Communities
Water, 2. Amsterdam Power Exchange Spotmarket B.V., and
3. N.V. Eneco and Directeur van de Dienst uitvoering en
toezicht energie; Joined party: B.V. Netherlands Elektriciteit                                         (Case C-18/03 P)
Administratiekantoor on the following questions:
                                                                                (2003/C 70/10)
I.     a) Can Article 86(2) EC be invoked to justify continuing
           to grant a company which was formerly entrusted
           with the operation of services of general economic
           interest and which entered into certain commitments             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 November
           in connection with such operation a special right to            2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
           enable it to honour those commitments after the                 the European Communities in Joined Cases T-141/99, T-142/
           particular task assigned to it has been completed?              99, T-150/99 and T-151/99 between Vela Srl and Tecnagrind
                                                                           SL and the Commission of the European Communities was
       b) If this question is answered in the affirmative, is a rule       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
           which provides for the preferential allocation for a            ties on 17 January 2003 by the appellants, represented by
           period of ten years of half to a quarter (declining             Maurizio Carretta, lawyer.
           over time) of the cross-border transport capacity for
           electricity to the undertaking concerned nevertheless
           invalid because it                                              The appellants claim that the Court should:
           1.    is not proportionate in relation to the — public
                 — interest served thereby;                                1.     As regards the substance,
           2.    affects trade to such an extent as would be                      —     annul Commission Decision C (1999) 540 of
                 contrary to the interests of the Community?                            9 March 1999
 ---pagebreak--- 22.3.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 70/7
      —     annul Commission Decision C (1999) 541 of                   1.    Is the first sentence of Article 5 of Regulation 1103/97 (1)
            4 March 1999                                                      to be understood as meaning that, in a private-law
                                                                              contractual relationship, only the final amount of the
      —     annul Commission Decision C (1999) 532 of                         invoice, or an individual amount detailed on the invoice,
            4 March 1999                                                      may or must be rounded, or does a contractually agreed
                                                                              unit price/tariff (in this case a price per minute) constitute
      —     annul Commission Decision C (1999) 533 of                         a monetary amount to be paid or accounted for within
            4 March 1999                                                      the meaning of that provision? In determining whether a
                                                                              tariff is a monetary amount to be paid or accounted for
      in the alternative, reduce the amount of subsidy to repay               within the meaning of Article 5 of Regulation 1103/97,
      to the Commission to a lesser amount as may be decided                  is it decisive whether the tariff relates to a particular
      in the course of proceedings;                                           multiple (in this case six) of a unit on the basis of which
                                                                              the final amount of the invoice is ascertained (in this case
2.    as a measure of inquiry, allow the claims submitted in the              a ten-second unit), or whether it is the tariff as perceived
      present proceedings;                                                    by consumers that represents the relevant amount of the
                                                                              invoice?
3.    in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        2.    Is Regulation 1103/97(and in particular Article 5) to be
                                                                              understood as constituting an exhaustive rule whereby
                                                                              sums other than monetary amounts to be paid or
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              accounted for (if any) may not be rounded in the manner
                                                                              described in Article 5, in other words, must they either
The judgment of the Court of First Instance rejected all the                  continue to be displayed in the former national currency,
pleas in law submitted by the appellants and thus dismissed                   or be quoted in the exact amount produced on conver-
the applications in their entirety. As regards the first plea in              sion?
law, the appellant undertakings share the view the Court of
First Instance in its reasoning from the legal point of view.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ L 162 of 19.06.1997, p. 1.
On the other hand, the appellants argue that so far as the
remaining pleas are concerned, the Court of First Instance has
not made clear the reasons for its own view, nor does it
even demonstrate that the Commission’s decisions were well
founded: it merely repeated the arguments used in the
contested decisions.                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van
                                                                        eerste Aanleg, Bruges by order of that Court of 17 January
                                                                        2003 in the criminal matters brought by the Public
According to the appellants, the judgment of the Court of First         Prosecutor against 1. Marcel Burmanjer, 2. René Alexan-
Instance is vitiated by the inadequacy, inconsistency and                        der van der Linden, and 3. Anthony de Jong
contradictions of the grounds.
                                                                                (Case C-20/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 70/12)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
München by order of that Court of 17 December 2002 in
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Rechtbank van eerste
the proceedings between Verbraucher-Zentrale Hamburg
                                                                        Aanleg (Court of First Instance), Bruges of 17 January 2003,
          e.V. and 02 (Germany) GmbH & Co. OHG
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 21 January 2003, for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the criminal matters brought by the
                          (Case C-19/03)                                Public Prosecutor against 1. Marcel Burmanjer, 2. René Alex-
                                                                        ander van der Linden, and 3. Anthony de Jong on the following
                          (2003/C 70/11)                                questions:
                                                                        (a)   Because the interests sought to be protected by the
                                                                              legislature could be safeguarded by other less stringent
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        means, are Articles 30 to 37 (free movement of goods) of
European Communities by order of the Landgericht München                      the EC Treaty, as applicable on 6 September 2001,
(Regional Court, Munich) of 17 December 2002, received at                     Article 48 et seq. of that Treaty (freedom of movement
the Court Registry on 20 January 2003, for a preliminary                      for persons), or Article 59 et seq. thereof (freedom to
ruling in the proceedings between Verbraucher-Zentrale Ham-                   provide services), infringed by Articles 2, 3, 5(3) and 13
burg e.V. and 02 (Germany) GmbH & Co. OHG on the                              of the Belgian law of 25 June 1993 on the exercise of
following questions:                                                          itinerant activities and the organisation of public markets,


title: Case C-500/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 29 November 2004 in the case of Proxxon GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion Köln

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 29 November 2004 in the case of Proxxon GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion Köln
   (Case C-500/04)
   (2005/C 57/26)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Finance Court, Dusseldorf) (Germany) of 29 November 2004 received at the Court Registry on 2 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Proxxon GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion Köln on the following questions:

               1.

               Do separately imported screwdriver bits with square drive for slotted-head, cross-head, TX (internal Torx) and hexagon socket head screws, of the type described in more detail in the order, fall within heading 8204?

               2.

               Do separately imported parts of the square system described in more detail in the order, which are not in direct contact with the fastener (nut, screw) during use, fall within heading 8204?

               3.

               Do separately imported square-system torque meter wrenches of the type described in more detail in the order fall within heading 8204?


title: Action brought on 19 November 1997 by Glasoltherm Sarl against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-399/97)

text:
20.2.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 55/15
2. On a proper construction of the Combined                         The Commission notes that the Hellenic Republic has not
     Nomenclature, as established by Annex I to                     yet adopted the appropriate measures to incorporate the
     Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2551/93 of                      directives at issue fully into the Greek legal order.
     10 August 1993 amending Annex I to Council
     Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and                  (1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 15.
     statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs             (2) OJ L 32, 5.2.1985, p. 14.
     Tariff, such goods are to be classified under the              (3) OJ L 315, 8.12.1994, p. 18.
     heading which occurs last in numerical order, namely           (4) OJ L 26, 31.1.1977, p. 67.
     subheading 6212 10 00.
(1) OJ C 145, 18.5.1996.
                                                                    Action brought on 19 November 1997 by Glasoltherm
                                                                    Sarl against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Action brought on 11 November 1997 by the Commission                                        (Case C-399/97)
of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                           Republic                                                           (98/C 55/28)
                       (Case C-385/97)
                         (98/C 55/27)                               An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                    the European Communities on 19 November 1997 by
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                 Glasoltherm Sarl, represented by Mr Penciolelli, lawyer, of
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities             18 Avenue de la LibeÂration, 91130 Ris Orangis (France).
on 11 November 1997 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-
Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for service          Glasoltherm Sarl claims that the Court should:
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                     Ð order the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        to support by all means, including the provision of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             financial assistance, over a period of 10 years from the
                                                                        date of entry into industrial service of the two
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt within the time-limit               demonstration operations referred to, the action taken
     laid down the laws, regulations and administrative                 by a commercial company formed by Glasoltherm Sarl
     provisions necessary in order to comply with:                      to market Glasoltherm thermoelectric micro-heating
                                                                        technology in the European Community,
     Ð Council Directive 93/118/EC (1) of 22 December
         1993 amending Directive 85/73/EEC (2) on the               Ð order the Commission of the European Communities
         financing of health inspections and controls of                to pay the costs.
         fresh meat and poultrymeat, and
     Ð Commission Directive 94/59/EC (3) of 2 December              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         1994 amending for the third time the Annexes
         to Council Directive 77/96/EEC (4) on the                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
         examination for trichinae (trichinella spiralis) upon      Case C-388/96 (1).
         importation from third countries of fresh meat
         derived from domestic swine,
                                                                    (1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997, p. 11.
                                                                        OJ C 295, 27.9.1997, p. 9.
         the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
         obligations under the Treaty and those Directives,
Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Action brought on 4 December 1997 by the Commission
                                                                    of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,                                    Netherlands
directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State to which they are addressed.                                         (Case C-408/97)
Under the first paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty,                                         (98/C 55/29)
Member States are to take all appropriate measures,
whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the
obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from             An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was
actions taken by the institutions of the Community.                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European


title: Removal from the register of C-133/96

text:
No C 166/ 12           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    31 . 5 . 97
Article 23 ( 2 ) ( relating to fire protection equipment) —                       Removal from the register of C-205/90 ( ] )
technical regulations within the meaning of Article 1 ( 5 )                                        ( 97/C 166/24 )
of Directive 83/ 189/EEC .
                                                                       By order of 20 February 1997 the President of the Court
(') OJ No L 109 , 1983 , p . 8 .                                       of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                       removal from the register of Case C-205/90 ( reference for
                                                                       a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel
                                                                       te Kortrijk ): Les Assurances du Credit Namur SA v.
                                                                       1 . PVBA 'Bowy' and 2 . G. Decoopman .
                                                                       ( 1 ) OJ No C 212, 25 . 8 . 1990 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Tribunal, London, by direction of that court of 7 April
1997, in the case of The Institute of the Motor Industry
      against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise
                          Case C-149/97 )
                                                                                Removal from the register of C- 126/96 (')
                          ( 97/C 166/23 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/25
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 By order of 25 February 1997 the President of the Court
European Communities by direction of the VAT and                       of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Duties Tribunal of 7 April 1997, which was received at                 removal from the register of Case C-126/96 ( reference for
the Court Registry on 17 April 1997, for a preliminary                 a preliminary ruling from Her Majesty's Court of Session
ruling in the case of The Institute of the Motor Industry              in Scotland, Edinburgh ): Marie Brizard and Roger
against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the                International SA v. William Grant & Sons ( International )
                                                                       Ltd and William Grant & Sons Ltd .
following question :
                                                                       (!) OJ No C 180 , 22 . 6 . 1996 .
'In the light of the findings of fact in paragraph 3—19 and
21 of the Decision of the Tribunal and in circumstances of
the sort found in paragraph 21 (which is summarized
below ), are the services supplied by such an association,
being a non-profit-making organization, exempt from VAT
as falling within the scope of Article 13A.1 ( 1 ) of the                         Removal from the register of C-133/96 ( ')
Sixth Directive ( J ) by virtue of the following words:                                            ( 97/C 166/26 )
                                                                       By order of 25 February 1997 the President of the Court
"(...) organizations with aims of a (...) trade-union (...)            of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
nature (...)"?                                                         removal from the register of Case C-133/96 ( reference for
                                                                       a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Anco
                                                                       na ): Ministero delle Finanze dello Stato v. Foods Import
Paragraph 21 , in summary, states that the association is a            Sri dei Flli Monti .
voluntary association of individuals comprising of
employees in the retail motor industry. The primary                    (') OJ No C 180 , 22 . 6 . 1996 .
purposes of the association are the improvement of the
standards of its members at work, the improvement of
career structures within the         different   sectors    of the
industry and the consequent enhancement of the public
perception of the industry and the people working within
it. The association seeks to achieve these ends by                                Removal from the register of C-186/95 (')
responding to the requirements of the industry for skills at                                       ( 97/C 166/27 )
all levels, by validating courses ( run by other institutions )
that teach those skills, by making awards on completion
of those courses and by grading its members, by                        By order of 27 February 1997 the President of the Court
disseminating information designed to keep its members                 of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
up to date with developments in the industry and in their              removal from the register of Case C-186/95 (reference
skills and by keeping a job placement register.'                       for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale
                                                                       di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Castelnuovo di Porto ):
 O Directive 77/388/EEC of the Council of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                       criminal proceedings against Luciano Iommi, Giovanni
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to          Carnovale, Franco De Bonis, Giorgio Iommi and Antonio
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax :                Iommi .
    uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ).
                                                                        (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .


title: Action brought on 19 July 1995 by The British Iron and Steel Producers' Association against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-150/95)

text:
23 . 9 . 95          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 248/ 17
of the Treaty of Rome and to authorize the aid granted to           The applicant claims that the Court should :
CMF SUD and CMF by the Italian authorities in the form of
successive financial contributions .
                                                                    — annul in its entirety the Commission decision set out in
                                                                         its Notice C 25/94 ( ex N 11 /94 ) concluding that aid
According to the applicant, it is because of the public                 which the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg proposed
financing in favour of those two undertakings that, when                 granting to ProfilARBED SA conformed to Article 3 of
tenders were sought by the Marseilles Chamber of                         Commission Decision No 3855/91 /ECSC and was thus
Commerce and Industry in relation to certain works to be                 compatible with the common market,
carried out at Marseilles airport, the tender submitted by
CMF SUD was preferred to that submitted by the applicant.
The difference between the prices tendered by the two               — order the Commission to pay the costs of the action
companies was found upon comparison to amount to                         including those of the applicant.
33% .
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The Commission decided not to oppose the financial
contributions at issue, on the basis of commitments given by
the Italian authorities in the context of a privatization           The applicant, an association representing British Iron and
programme undertaken by Iritecna, the parent company of             Steel producers, challenges the Commission Decision ,
CMF SUD and CMF . Those commitments consisted in                    reproduced in Commission Notice C 25/94, declaring
particular of the liquidation of CMF SUD and of the                 compatible with the Common market an aid which
privatization of CMF by no later than 30 June 1995 .                the Luxembourg authorities proposed to grant to Arbed
                                                                    for the construction of a new electric steel plant at the
The applicant maintains that the contested aid is illegal ,         Esch-Shifflange steel complex, replacing the existing LDAC
since it was authorized in contravention of Article 93 ( 3 )        Steel complex. The contested Decision concludes that the
of the Treaty and such illegality cannot be regularized             aid is compatible with the common market because it is in
retroactively. According to the applicant, the Commission           conformity with Article 3 of the Fifth Steel Aid Code ( SAC ),
disregarded the conditions governing the grant of aid to            which authorizes the grant of aid for environmental
undertakings in difficulties, as defined in the strict approach     protection in certain circumstances .
taken in the ' Eighth Report on Competition Policy' and the
communication concerning 'New Community guidelines on               The applicant submits that the contested decision purports
State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty '.     to interpret Article 3 of the fifth SAC as providing that an aid
There was never any plausible aim of making the recipient           may be qualified as environmental aid where it is to be used
undertakings viable ; no requirement was imposed in                 for the construction of new plant, and that such an
relation to any serious recovery plan; and, lastly, those           interpretation is contrary to the plain and unambiguous
 undertakings have received aid on four occasions, whereas it       wording of Article 3 of the Fifth SAC, according to which
 should not have been necessary to provide restructuring aid        aid granted to steel undertakings for bringing them into line
 more than once .                                                   with new statutory environmental standards may be
                                                                    deemed compatible with the common market.
                                                                    The point of view of the Commission presupposes that the
                                                                    same principles of interpretation should be applicable to all
                                                                    forms of aid for environmental protection whether
                                                                    authorized under the EC Treaty or the ECSC Treaty .
                                                                    However, whereas the EC Treaty permits the granting of aid
 Action brought on 19 July 1995 by The British Iron and              by Member States in certain circumstances set out in
 Steel Producers ' Association against Commission of the             Article 92 , Article 4 ( c ) of the ECSC Treaty provides that all
                   European Communities                              subsidies or aids granted by States in any form whatsoever
                        Case T-150/95 )                              are to be prohibited .
                         ( 95/C 248/37 )
                                                                     On the other hand the SAC is, in itself, a derogation from the
                                                                     ECSC principle of prohibition of State aid, prompted by the
                Language of the case: English                        severe problems that ECSC undertakings had and have still
                                                                     to face . The applicant considers, therefore, on the basis of an
                                                                     overriding principle of law, that derogations from a Treaty
 An action against the Commission of the European                    principle should be interpreted restrictively and that the
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Commission may not seek to bring the Fifth SAC within the
 Instance of the European Communities on 19 July by The              EC framework on environmental aid by purporting to
 British Iron and Steel Producers' Association , represented         interpret Article 3 ( 1 ) of the Fifth SAC more broadly .
 by John Boyce and Philip Raven, Solicitors of Slaughter &
 May, London, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
 the Chambers of Wagner & Rukevina, 10a Boulevard de la
 Foire .


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg by order of that court of 5 November 1998 in the case of Bayram Ali Lotoz v. Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart - Amt für öffentliche Ordnung (Case C-445/98)

text:
20.2.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 48/13
Reference      for    a    preliminary     ruling   by    the       5. Alternatively, when determining whether the criterion
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Roermond by order of that                    referred to in Question 3 above is fulfilled, should a
court of 3 December 1998 in the case of R. J. de Laat                    more formal test be applied, such as, for example,
against Board of the Landelijk Instituut Sociale                         whether or not there is a continuing employment
                         Verzekeringen                                   relationship for the purposes of labour law?
                       (Case C-444/98)
                                                                    6. Having regard to the answers to the above questions,
                        (1999/C 48/22)                                   is a frontier worker who, immediately following his
                                                                         dismissal from full-time employment, commences
                                                                         work with the same employer under a part-time
                                                                         contract of employment to be regarded as a partially
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                          unemployed frontier worker within the meaning of
of the European Communities by order of the                              Article 71(1)(a)(i) of the Regulation or as a wholly
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Roermond (District Court,                    unemployed frontier worker within the meaning of
Roermond) of 3 December 1998, received at the Court                      Article 71(1)(a)(ii) of the Regulation?
Registry on 7 December 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of R. J. de Laat against Board of the Landelijk
                                                                    (1) Updated version, OJ L 28, 30.1.1997, p. 1.
Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen on the following questions:
1. When determining whether a frontier worker is
    partially unemployed and therefore on the basis of
    Article 71(1)(a)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC)                 Reference      for    a     preliminary     ruling  by    the
    No 1408/71 (1) may claim benefit from the competent             Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg by order of
    Member State, or is wholly unemployed and therefore             that court of 5 November 1998 in the case of Bayram Ali
    on the basis of Article 71(1)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EEC)        Lotoz v. Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart Ð Amt für öffentliche
    No 1408/71 may claim benefit from the Member State                                          Ordnung
    in which he resides, is it relevant whether under the
    national legislation of the competent Member State or                                   (Case C-445/98)
    of the Member State in which he resides the worker in                                    (1999/C 48/23)
    question is to be regarded as partially or wholly
    unemployed or should partially unemployed' and
    wholly unemployed' be given a univocal Ð                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice
    Community Ð construction?                                       of the European Communities by order of the
                                                                    Verwaltungsgerichtshof         Baden-Württemberg      (Higher
                                                                    Administrative Court, Baden-Württemberg) of 5 November
                                                                    1998, received at the Court Registry on 7 December 1998,
2. If the classification under national law is relevant,
                                                                    for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bayram Ali Lotoz
    which classification should prevail where the view
                                                                    against Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart Ð Amt für öffentliche
    adopted under the law of the competent Member State
                                                                    Ordnung (City of Stuttgart, Public Order Department) on
    and that under the law of the Member State in which
                                                                    the following questions:
    the worker resides lead to different results?
                                                                    1. Does a family member who has been legally resident
                                                                         with a Turkish worker for five years within the
3. If the classification under national law is irrelevant
                                                                         meaning of the second indent of the first paragraph of
    and partially unemployed' or wholly unemployed'
                                                                         Article 7 of Decision No 1/80, and who does not fulfil
    must be given a univocal Ð Community Ð
                                                                         the requirements for availing himself of the rights
    construction, what criterion should then be applied?
                                                                         under Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80, continue to
                                                                         enjoy the entitlement under the second indent of the
                                                                         first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision 1/80 in
4. Is it of decisive importance in that regard whether or                circumstances where, because of an officially certified
    not there is a continuing link with the State of                     incapacity for work, the Turkish worker now merely
    employment, and if so, what conditions must be                       draws a pension and engages in minor employment as
    satisfied for there to be such a link? Is there such a               an auxiliary in a hotel/restaurant?
    link if:
                                                                    2. Does a family member who has been legally resident
                                                                         with the Turkish worker for five years within the
    (a) there is a concrete prospect that the employee may               meaning of the second indent of the first paragraph of
         be re-employed by the former employer or                        Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 continue, after those
                                                                         five years, to be legally resident within the meaning of
                                                                         that provision if, under the domestic law of the
    (b) the employee continues to work in the same State,                Member State, his residence is deemed to be
         even though to a lesser extent?                                 temporarily authorised only on the basis of an
 ---pagebreak--- C 48/14                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
    application for the extension of his residence permit,               Composition) of 16 September 1998 in case T-110/94,
    and the authority subsequently refuses the application?              International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) v.
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities;
3. Where a Turkish national commits an offence against
    the Narcotics Law, and on specific and general
    preventive grounds the authorities have no discretion            Ð decide on the case pursuant to Article 54 of the
    in the matter, is the limitation', within the meaning of            Statute (EC) of the Court and annul the decision of
    Article 14(1) of Decision No 1/80, of his entitlement                17 February 1995 of the Commission contested in case
    acquired pursuant the second indent of the first                     T-110/95;
    paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 justified'
    on grounds of public policy, public security or public
    health if, on the evidence of his personal conduct, it           Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the
    may reasonably be expected that he will not re-offend?               proceedings before the Court of First Instance as well
    In determining that question, are the criteria which                 as the costs of the present proceedings;
    apply the same as those under Article 48(3) of the EC
    Treaty and Article 3(1) and (2) of Council Directive
    64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 (1) on the                        Ð order the interveners before the Court of First Instance
    coordination of special measures concerning the                      to pay the applicant's costs before the Court of First
    movement and residence of foreign nationals which                    Instance relating to the interventions in these
    are justified on grounds of public policy, public                    proceedings;
    security or public health?
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1963Ð1964, p. 117.                   Ð alternatively, in the event that it does not decide on
                                                                         the case, reserve the costs and refer the matter to a
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance composed of
                                                                         judges other than those present in case T-110/95.
Appeal brought on 8 December 1998 by International                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
Express Carriers Conference (IECC) against the judgment
delivered on 16 September 1998 by the Third Chamber,
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of              1. It is submitted that the Court of First Instance
the European Communities in case T-110/95 (1) between                    committed a manifest factual error in examining the
International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) and the                 documents submitted to it. It justified the
Commission of the European Communities, supported by                     Commission's affirmations which relied upon one
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                         document (the Briefing paper), by making reference to
            Ireland, La Poste and The Post Office                        another document (the draft REIMS Agreement)
                       (Case C-449/98 P)                                 which, it is a fact, the Commission had not examined
                         (1999/C 48/24)                                  at the time when the decision was adopted.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 September             2. The Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance
1998 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of                      committed an error of law in ruling that the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  Commission was entitled to reject the Appellant's
in case T-110/95 between International Express Carriers                  complaint on grounds of Community interest, by
Conference (IECC) and the Commission of the European                     invoking Article 3 of Regulation 17/62 (2), even though
Communities, supported by the United Kingdom of Great                    the existence of an obvious restriction of competition
Britain and Northern Ireland, La Poste and The Post                      had been demonstrated.
Office, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 8 December 1998 by
International Express Carriers Conference (IECC), a                      Alternatively, the Appellant submits that, in the event
professional organisation established under Swiss law,                   that Community interest can be invoked in a case
having its registered office in Geneva (Switzerland),                    which was fully investigated, the Court of First
represented by Eric Morgan de Rivery, member of the                      Instance violated the legal principles applying to that
Paris Bar, Jacques Derenne, member of the Paris and                      Community interest.
Brussels Bars and Monica Cunningham, member of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, Bonn & Schmitt, 7, Val Ste
                                                                         The Appellant also submits that the Court of First
Croix.
                                                                         Instance erred in law in considering that the
                                                                         Commission was justified in rejecting the complaint on
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                              the grounds that it had proper cause to assume that
                                                                         the conduct of the undertakings concerned will be
Ð annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                   amended in a manner conducive to the general
    the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended                    interest.


title: Case T-49/14: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckerhandwerks vCommission (Protected geographical indication — ‘Kołocz śląski’ or ‘Kołacz śląski’ — Cancellation proceedings — Legal base — Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Grounds for cancellation — Fundamental rights

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckerhandwerks vCommission
   (Case T-49/14) (1)

   ((Protected geographical indication - ‘Kołocz śląski’ or ‘Kołacz śląski’ - Cancellation proceedings - Legal base - Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Grounds for cancellation - Fundamental rights)
   (2015/C 398/51)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckerhandwerks eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Jung, M. Teworte-Vey, A. Renvert and J. Saatkamp, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Guillem Carrau and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision of 14 November 2013 concerning the rejection of a request to cancel a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Kołocz śląski/kołacz śląski (PGI)) (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 40).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckerhandwerks eV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.


Avis juridique important

|

E1996J0007(03)

ORDER OF THE COURT of 27 June 1997 in Case E-7/96: Paul Inge Hansen v. EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for failure to act - Admissibility)

Official Journal C 282 , 18/09/1997 P. 0011 - 0011

ORDER OF THE COURT of 27 June 1997 in Case E-7/96: Paul Inge Hansen v. EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for failure to act - Admissibility) (97/C 282/07)In Case E-7/96: Paul Inge Hansen v. EFTA Surveillance Authority - application for an order requiring the EFTA Surveillance Authority to take a decision, for compensation and for 'preliminary authorization`, concerning an alleged infingement by the Government of Norway of the EEA Agreement - the Court, composed of: Bjørn Haug, President, Thór Vilhjálmsson (Rapporteur) and Carl Baudenbacher, Judges; and Per Christiansen, Registrar, made an order of 27 June 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.2. Each party shall bear their own costs.


title: Case T-142/03: Action brought on 28 April 2003 by Fost Plus VZW against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 146/44               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           21.6.2003
     ‘Code of Good Administrative Behaviour’, specifically the             2.     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
     section on ‘Consistency’ under the heading of ‘General
     Principles of Good Administration’. The illegality of the
     consultation also gives rise, in the applicant’s view, to the
     illegality of the partial refusal of access, which is specifi-        Pleas in law and main arguments
     cally based on the reply by which the Italian authorities
     refused disclosure;
                                                                           The applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision
—    the applicant further alleges discriminatory treatment vis-           2003/82/EC of 29 January 2003 ( 1). The contested decision
     à-vis a separate request (made by another individual) for             authorises Belgium to impose within its territory higher
     access to documents coming within the same category as                recycling and recovery targets than those laid down in Directive
     those to which the applicant is seeking access;                       94/62/EC (2).
—    the applicant also submits that, in particular by treating
     as adequate the ostensible reasoning of the senior official           The applicant is a non-profit-making association which is the
                                                                           only organisation recognised in Belgium for the purpose of
     who signed the documents, who refers to a measure of a
     national court applying national legislation which is                 collecting, recycling and valorising domestic packaging waste.
     generally recognised as being less transparent than the               It assumes responsibility for accepting domestic packaging
                                                                           waste from those who are affiliated to it. Members of the
     provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the Com-
     mission committed a manifest error of assessment and                  applicant represent the producers and importers of packaging,
     breached at the same time Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC)             packaged products or packaging materials, distribution com-
     No 1049/2001, the principle of sound administration                   panies and trade federations.
     and the obligation to ensure that decisions taken by the
     institutions are adequately reasoned;
                                                                           The applicant first of all alleges that there has been a breach of
                                                                           Article 253 EC and of Article 6(6) of Directive 94/62/EC. The
—    finally, the applicant submits that there has been a breach           applicant claims that the Commission, when adopting the
     of its rights of defence in so far as access to the documents         contested decision, based itself on inaccurate or incomplete
     in question is the only avenue open to it to assess the               facts. By so doing, it argues, the Commission committed errors
     legality of the decision authorising a State aid scheme.              of fact in its assessment of the criteria set out in Article 6(6) of
                                                                           Directive 94/62/EC.
                                                                           The applicant also claims that there has been a breach of
                                                                           Article 253 EC. The Commission has, in its view, failed to set
                                                                           out sufficient reasons as to why Belgium has, within its
                                                                           territory, adequate recycling capacity for metal packaging,
                                                                           non-ferrous metals, and the mechanical recycling of plastics,
                                                                           paper and cardboard. The applicant further contends that the
Action brought on 28 April 2003 by Fost Plus VZW
                                                                           Commission fails in its decision to examine the effect which
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           an increase in the minimum recycling targets may have for
                                                                           each type of packaging material.
                         (Case T-142/03)
                                                                           The applicant concludes by submitting that there has been an
                         (2003/C 146/79)                                   infringement of the general duty of care and a breach of
                                                                           Directive 94/62/EC inasmuch as the Commission assumed
                                                                           certain matters, such as incineration with energy recovery and
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                          available capacity, to be factually valid without examining
                                                                           whether this was possible or in accordance with Directive 94/
                                                                           62/EC.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  (1 ) Decision 2003/82/EC: Commission Decision of 29 January 2003
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      confirming measures notified by Belgium pursuant to Article 6(6)
European Communities on 28 April 2003 by Fost Plus VZW,                         of Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and the Council
having its registered office in Brussels, represented by Peter                  on packaging and packaging waste (Text with EEA relevance)
Wytinck, Jan Bouckaert and Hendrik Viane, advocaten.                            (notified under document number C(2003) 361) (OJ 2003 L 31,
                                                                                p. 32).
                                                                           (2 ) Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and the Council
                                                                                of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     1994 L 365, p. 10).
1.   Annul Article 1 of the Decision;