title: Action brought on 11 January 1999 by Elbe-Stahlwerke Feralpi GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-6/99)

text:
C 86/22               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               27.3.1999
Ð annul the decision of the European Commission by                    Action brought on 11 January 1999 by Elbe-Stahlwerke
    which it considered that the dependent child                      Feralpi GmbH against the Commission of the European
    allowances paid pursuant of Article 67(3) of the Staff                                    Communities
    Regulations from January 1997 to June 1998,
                                                                                (Case T-6/99)
    amounting to a global sum of LUF 181 446, were not
    due and payable, and that it was authorised, under                                       (1999/C 86/42)
    Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and on the basis of
    Article 43 of Annex VIII thereto, to recover that sum
    by way of deduction from the retirement pension paid                            (Language of the case: German)
    monthly by the European Commission to the
    applicant;
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
Ð declare unlawful, if not unjustified, the suspension by             Communities was brought before the Court of First
    the Commission on 14 July 1988 of the grant of the                Instance of the European Communities on 11 January
    dependent child allowance to the applicant pursuant               1999 by Elbe-Stahlwerke Feralpi GmbH, of Riesa,
    to Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations;                        Germany, represented by Wolf Michael Kühne of Sozietät
                                                                      Schürmann & Partner, Frankfurt am Main and Milan,
                                                                      with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Ð declare unlawful and unjustified the application by the
                                                                      Chambers      of    Schaeffer   Hangel     Dennewald     &
    Commission of the rule provided for in Article 85 of
                                                                      Hellenbrand, 12, Avenue de la Porte-Neuve, Luxembourg.
    the Staff Regulations concerning recovery of undue
    payments;
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð order the European Commission to repay to the
    applicant the sums deducted from her retirement
    pension from July 1998 onwards, up to the total sum               1. order the Commission pursuant to Article 23 of the
    of LUF 181 446;                                                       ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice to produce
                                                                          various records (papers, minutes etc.) documenting the
Ð order the European Commission to pay the costs.                         circumstances in which the contested decision was
                                                                          adopted;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      2. authorise the applicant to inspect the documents
The applicant, a retired official, is the mother of a son                 produced;
who suffers from a serious illness. Since 30 June 1993 she
has been in receipt of a double dependent child allowance
pursuant to Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations, since
                                                                      3. declare the Commission's decision of 11 November
her son lives with his parents. Upon verifying the request
                                                                          1998 on German aid to ESF Elbe-Stahlwerke Feralpi
for extension of that allowance, the Commission found
                                                                          GmbH, Riesa, Sachsen, to be null and void;
that the applicant's son had been married since 1991; it
therefore adopted the contested decisions.
                                                                      4. order the Commission to pay the costs of the
In support of her application, the applicant pleads                       proceedings.
infringement of:
Ð Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations, in that a                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    decision taken under that Article must be duly
    supported by a statement of reasons;
                                                                      The contested decision declared the investment aid of
Ð the general principle that an administrative decision               DEM 8 173 million, the additional investment of
    must contain a statement of the reasons on which it is            DEM 1 236 million and the loan containing an aid
    based;                                                            element of DEM 12 million granted in 1995 by Germany
                                                                      to the applicant, a steel company, to be incompatible with
                                                                      Decision No 2496/96/ECSC and with the common market
Ð the principle that an administrative decision may not               for coal and steel. It further found that the aid element
    have retroactive effect, save in exceptional                      contained in the loan awarded at the end of 1994 was not
    circumstances duly justified by a statement of reasons;           authorised for working capital advances of DEM 7,2
    and                                                               million and DEM 4,8 million and was therefore also
                                                                      incompatible with the decision cited above and the
Ð Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, in that the                    common market.
    provisions of that Article have been applied without
    its having been shown that the conditions governing
    its applicability are fulfilled in the present case.              The applicant pleads infringement of the Treaty or of rules
                                                                      of law relating to its application, and misuse of powers
                                                                      pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty.
 ---pagebreak--- 27.3.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 86/23
It claims that the Commission failed to appreciate that the             duties paid by the applicant prior to the adoption of
end product produced by the applicant, namely                           that regulation under the powers vested in the Council
hammer-forged reinforcement steel in rings as a cold-form               by the EC Treaty; and
end product of the semi-finished product, wire rod, is not
one of the products falling within Annex 1 (definition of
the expressions coal and steel') of the ECSC Treaty.               Ð order the Council to pay the legal costs and expenses
Under Code 4400 of Annex I, only wire rod' is included                 of the procedure.
as a product of the hot finishing stage of the rolling mill.
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Hammer-forged reinforcement steel in rings' falls within
the sweep-up provisions for particular areas of steel
production which do not fall within the ECSC Treaty;
those provisions expressly specify the drawing' of wire           In 1993 the applicant, a producer of leather handbags,
rod'.                                                               reached an agreement with Lucci Creation Limited, a
                                                                    Hong Kong-based company with manufacturing facilities
                                                                    in China, to produce its leather handbags. These products
In applying the ECSC Treaty to aid for activities not               were manufactured using leather and other materials
covered by the Treaty (Article 81 of the ECSC Treaty read           which the company purchased from European suppliers.
together with Annex I) the Commission, in the contested
decision, not only interpreted the Treaty but amended it
without complying with the requisite procedures of Article          By Regulation (EC) No 209/97 (1) the Commission
81(2) or Article 95(1) of the ECSC Treaty). Furthermore,            imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports into
the Commission misused its powers in abusing its                    the Community of handbags originating in the People's
authority to apply Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty and the          Republic of China. Definitive anti-dumping duties were
Steel Aid Code in that it extended the latter to production         subsequently imposed under Council Regulation (EC)
activities falling outside the scope of Annex I to Article 81       No 1567/97 (2).
of the ECSC Treaty without following the procedure
under the second paragraph of Article 81 or Article 95.
                                                                    On 5 November 1998, the contested Council Regulation
                                                                    (EC) No 2380/98 (3) was adopted. This regulation
Finally, the applicant claims that the decision was                 confirmed that no dumping was found on the transactions
unlawfully made restroactive and that the principles of             between the applicant and Lucci Creation Limited and
the protection of legitimate expectations and non-                  that, as a result, both were entitled to an individual
discrimination were infringed.                                      dumping margin of 0,0 %.
                                                                    The request for retroactive effect for these rates of
                                                                    anti-dumping duty was rejected on two grounds:
Action brought on 11 January 1999 by Medici Grimm KG
         against the Council of the European Union                  Ð the prospective nature of measures adopted further to
                                                                        review investigations, and
                         (Case T-7/99)
                        (1999/C 86/43)
                                                                    Ð the unwarranted bonus' that exporting producers
                                                                        cooperating in the review would receive despite
                (Language of the case: English)                         non-cooperation in the initial investigation.
An action against the Council of the European Union was             Between 3 August 1997 and 6 November 1998 the
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European          applicant paid a total of DEM 1 456 452 in anti-dumping
Communities on 11 January 1999 by Medici Grimm KG,                  duties.
represented by Robert M. MacLean, Solicitor, of Cameron
McKenna and Paul McGarry, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and
Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.                                  The applicant submits that the contested regulation should
                                                                    be annulled in so far as it fails to grant retroactive effect
                                                                    and reimbursement of the anti-dumping duties paid by the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         applicant on the following grounds:
Ð partially annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2380/98                Ð The Council infringed a rule of law relating to the
     on the grounds that the Council failed to grant                    application of the EC Treaty by infringing
     retrospective reimbursement of the anti-dumping                    fundamental principles and express provisions of


title: Case T-257/09: Order of the General Court of 12 April 2010 — Aecops v Commission

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/51

         Order of the General Court of 12 April 2010 — Aecops v Commission
   (Case T-257/09) (1)

   2010/C 148/89

      Language of the case: Portuguese

   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Removal from the register of T-72/96

text:
21 . 12 . 96          I EN I              Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 388/ 11
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            Removal from the register of T-31/96 ( ] )
                                                                                ( 96/C 388/21
The applicant contests the appointing authority's decision                          (Language of the case: French)
dated 1 December 1995 and notified on 27 December
1995 by which he was assigned non-active status,                     By order of 6 November 1996 the President of the Third
backdated to 30 November 1995 and granted the                        Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
allowance provided for in Annex IV to the Staff                      Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
Regulations. By way of subsequent related decisions, he              removal from the register of Case T-31/96 : Credit
also contests the decision, notified by letter of 21 February        Lyonnais v. Commission of the European ' Communities.
1996 , to withhold Lfrs 71 484 from the allowance granted
pursuant to Article 41 of the Staff Regulations and the              (!) OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
related decision to stop, with effect from 1 December
1995 , the remuneration and allowances to which he is
entitled .
                                                                               Removal from the register of T-70/96 (')
The applicant argues in the first place in support of his                                         96/C 388/22 )
claims that Articles 25 and 41 of the Staff Regulations
have been infringed. He contends that, under the principle                        (Language of the case: Portuguese)
of legal certainty of legal situations, the starting point of a      By order of 12 November 1996 the President of the
Community measure may not be set at a date prior to its              Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
publication. As far as the matter at issue is concerned, late        European Communities has ordered the removal from the
notification of assignment to non-active status prevents             register of Case T-70/96 : Mediocurso, Estabelecimento de
the appointing authority from considering the official's             Ensino Particular, Limitada          v.    Commission of the
priority for reinstatement in any post of his grade which            European Communities.
may fall vacant or be created and for which he has the
necessary qualifications .                                           (!) OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 .
In addition, the statement of reasons of the contested
decision does not enable either the applicant or the Court
of First Instance to check whether the budgetary authority
                                                                               Removal from the register of T-72/96 (*)
extended the possibilities for the application of Article 41
of the Staff Regulations to the 1996 financial year in                                          ( 96/C 388/23
accordance with the rules set out in Article 220 et seq. of                       (Language of the case: Portuguese)
the EC Treaty.
                                                                     By order of 12 November 1996 the President of the
                                                                     Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
In his application, the applicant also claims that there has         European Communities has ordered the removal from the
been an infringement of the duty to have regard to                   register of Case T-72/96 : Mediocurso, Estabelecimento de
officials ' interest.                                                Ensino Particular, Limitada v. Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities.
                                                                     (!) OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 .


title: Action brought on 17 September 1998 by Italian Republic against Council of the European Union (Case C-340/98)

text:
C 340/10               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.11.98
and not, as the French authorities maintain, by resolution          latter provision states that the invoice must be issued by a
of the Intercommunal Public Transport Board of                      taxable person to another taxable person and that it must
26 October 1989, that is to say before even Council                 relate to goods or services supplied by him to that other
Directive 90/531/EEC of 17 September 1990 on the                    person. The Netherlands rules at issue in the present case
procurement procedures of entities operating in the water,          do not refer to any such invoice.
energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (2)
entered into force.
                                                                    The economic considerations expounded by the
                                                                    Netherlands Government are not wholly without merit.
(1) OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 84.                                    However, they cannot result in the conclusion that the
(2) OJ L 297 of 29.10.1990, p. 1.
                                                                    legislation is to be interpreted in a manner contrary to its
                                                                    manifest provisions. Ratio legis non est lex.
                                                                    (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                        harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                        turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:
Action brought on 14 September 1998 by the Commission                   uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                           Netherlands
                        (Case C-338/98)
                          (98/C 340/16)
                                                                    Action brought on 17 September 1998 by Italian Republic
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was                            against Council of the European Union
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                                         (Case C-340/98)
Communities on 14 September 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Emile                                             (98/C 340/17)
Mennens and Enrico Traversa, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                    An action against the Council of the European Union was
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Kirchberg.
                                                                    Communities on 17 September 1998 by the Italian
                                                                    Republic, represented by Professor Umberto Leanza,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         acting as Agent, assisted by Ivo Braguglia, Avvocato dello
                                                                    Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Ð declare that, by providing, contrary to Articles 17(2)(a)         Italian Embassy, 5 rue Marie-AdeÂlaïde.
    and 18(1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/
    EEC (1), that an employer subject to VAT may deduct             The applicant claims that the Court should:
    part of the expenses reimbursed to an employee for
    the use of a private motor vehicle for business
    purposes, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed             Ð annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1361/
    to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;                       98 (1) in so far as it does not fix the derived
                                                                         intervention price for white sugar for all areas of Italy
                                                                         for the sugar-marketing year 1998/99; in addition, if
Ð order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the                        need be, annul Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC)
    costs.                                                               No 1360/98 (2) in so far as it fixes the intervention
                                                                         price for Italy also;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Ð order the Council of the European Union to pay the
The rule at issue, which is laid down in Article 23                      costs of the proceedings.
of the Netherlands Uitvoeringsbesluit Omzetbelasting
(Implementing Regulation concerning Turnover Taxes)                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1968, is contrary to a fundamental aspect of the Sixth
VAT Directive, since it permits the deduction of cost
elements other than the VAT charged at the previous stage           For the marketing year 1998/99 both the intervention
by a taxable person to the taxable person making the                price and the derived intervention prices were fixed by
deduction.                                                          Regulations (EC) No 1360/98 and (EC) No 1361/98,
                                                                    which entered into force on 1 July 1998.
That fundamental incompatibility between the system
operating in the Netherlands and the Sixth VAT Directive            By so doing, the Council acted in contravention of the
is complemented by an incompatibility as regards formal             provisions contained in Article 3(4) and (5) of the basic
requirements. Article 18(1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive           Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 (3), since it fixed the
provides that, in order to exercise his right to deduct, the        intervention prices (including the derived intervention
taxable person must, prior to making the deduction, hold            prices) in June 1998, whereas it should have fixed them by
an invoice drawn up in accordance with Article 22(3); the           August 1997.
 ---pagebreak--- 7.11.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 340/11
In addition to the infringement of those basic provisions,           The appellant claims that the Court should:
the Council has breached the principle of protection of
legitimate expectations.
                                                                     Ð set aside the judgment delivered in Case T-27/97;
Ð Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty:
                                                                     Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
    It is indisputable that even acts of general application,
    such as regulations, must provide a sufficient
    statement of the reasons on which they are based,                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    especially with regard to provisions directly
    concerning the interests of separate recognisable
    classes of traders (such as, in this case, Italian beet          Breach of Community law by the Court of First Instance
    growers).                                                        in its assessment of the pleas in law and arguments relied
                                                                     on in Case T-72/97 (1).
    Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 states no reasons for
    fixing the derived intervention price for five other
                                                                     (1) OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997, p. 16.
    Member States but not for Italy. Nor are any reasons
    provided in Regulation (EC) No 1360/98 in respect of
    the fixing of the intervention price.
Ð Breach of the principle of equal treatment:
    Whilst Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 failed            Action brought on 18 September 1998 by Commission of
    to fix the derived intervention price for white sugar            the European Communities against Grand Duchy of
    for Italy, it confirmed that price for the United                                         Luxembourg
    Kingdom, Ireland, Portugal, Finland and Spain.
                                                                                (Case C-342/98)
    Albeit unaware of the reasons which led to Italy's                                       (98/C 340/19)
    being denied a derived intervention price and of the
    reasons for which that price was confirmed for the
    other Member States, the Italian Government must
                                                                     An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
    claim that the Council has breached the principle of
                                                                     brought before the Court of Justice of the European
    equality and afforded it unequal treatment.
                                                                     Communities on 18 September 1998 by the Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities, represented by GeÂrard
(1) OJ L 185 of 30.6.1998, p. 3.                                     Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
(2) OJ L 185 of 30.6.1998, p. 1.
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
(3) OJ L 177 of 1.7.1981, p. 4.
                                                                     Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                     The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                     that the Court should:
Appeal brought on 17 September 1998 by Proderec Ð
FormacËaÄo e Desenvolvimento de Recursos Humanos ACE                 Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
against the judgment delivered on 16 July 1998 by the                     prescribed periods the laws, regulations and
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
European Communities in Case T-72/97 between Proderec                     Commission Directive 95/33/EC of 10 July 1995,
Ð FormacËaÄo e Desenvolvimento de Recursos Humanos                        amending Council Directive 82/471/EEC concerning
  ACE and the Commission of the European Communities                      certain products used in animal nutrition (1),
                      (Case C-341/98 P)                                   Commission Directive 95/44/EC of 26 July 1995
                                                                          establishing the conditions under which certain
                        (98/C 340/18)
                                                                          harmful organisms, plants, plant products and other
                                                                          objects listed in Annexes I to V to Council Directive
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 July 1998                  77/93/EEC may be introduced into or moved within
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                   the Community for trial or scientific purposes or for
the European Communities in Case T-72/97 between                          work on varietal selections (2) and Commission
Proderec Ð FormacËaÄo e Desenvolvimento de Recursos                       Directive 96/78/EC of 6 December 1996 amending
Humanos ACE and the Commission of the European                            certain Annexes to Council Directive 77/93/EEC on
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                    protective measures against the introduction into the
the European Communities on 17 September 1998 by                          Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant
Proderec Ð FormacËaÄo e Desenvolvimento de Recursos                       products and against their spread within the
Humanos ACE, represented by Manuel Rodrigues, of the                      Community (3), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                     failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of
care of Luísa Maria Miranda Sousa Pires, 4a rue Jean                      Directive 95/33/EC, Article 4 of Directive 95/44/EC
JaureÁs.                                                                  and Article 2 of Directive 96/78/EC;


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 16 October 1997 in Joined Cases C-69/96 to C-79/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Maria Antonella Garofalo and Others v. Ministero della Sanità, Unità Sanitaria Locale (USL) No 58 di Palermo (Article 177 of the EC Treaty - Jurisdiction - Court of one of the Member States - Extraordinary petition to the President of the Italian Republic - Compulsory opinion of the Consiglio di Stato - Directives 86/457/EEC and 93/16/EEC - Specific training in general medical practice - Rights acquired before 1 January 1995)

text:
C 357/10                  EN            Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 11 . 97
Finance Court), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
pending before that court between Julius Fillibeck Söhne                                   (Fifth Chamber)
GmbH & Co . KG and Finanzamt Neustadt — on the
interpretation of Articles 2 ( 1 ) and 6 (2 ) of the Sixth                               of 16 October 1997
Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating            in Joined Cases C-69/96 to C-79/96 (reference for a
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:              preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Maria
uniform basis of assessment ( OJ L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 )     Antonella Garofalo and Others v. Ministero della Sanità,
— the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,                   Unità Sanitaria Locale ( USL ) No 58 di Palermo (')
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de           (Article 1 77 of the EC Treaty — Jurisdiction — Court of
Almeida, P. Jann and L. Sevón ( Rapporteur ), Judges;              one of the Member States ■— Extraordinary petition to the
P. Leger, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal                  President of the Italian Republic — Compulsory opinion
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on          of the Consiglio di Stato — Directives 86/457/EEC and
16 October 1997, in which it has ruled:                            93/16/EEC — Specific training in general medical practice
                                                                              — Rights acquired before 1 January 1995)
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/18 )
1 . Article 2 (1 ) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/
     EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
     laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
     — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis
     of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that an            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     employer who provides transport for employees free of                    published in the European Court Reports)
     charge from their homes to the workplace where they
     are more than a specified distance apart, in the
     absence of any real connection either with the work           In Joined Cases C-69/96 to C-79/96 : reference to the
     performed or the wages received, does not effect a            Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Consi
     supply of services for consideration within the               glio di Stato ( Council of State ) ( Italy ), for a preliminary
     meaning of that provision.                                    ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
                                                                   between Maria Antonella Garofalo (C-69/96 ), Giovanni
                                                                   Pagano ( C-70/96 ), Rosa Bruna Vitale ( C-71/96 ), Francesca
                                                                   Nuccio ( C-72/96 ), Giacomo Cangialosi ( C-73/96 ), Gia
                                                                   coma D'Amico ( C-74/96 ), Giulia Lombardo ( C-75/96 ),
2 . Article 6 (2) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC is to          Emanuela Giovenco (C-76/96 ), Caterina Lo Gaglio ( C-77/
     be interpreted as meaning that transport provided for          96 ), Daniela Guerrera ( C-78/96 ) and Cesare Di Marco
     employees free of charge by the employer between               ( C-79/96 ) and Ministero della Sanità, Unità Sanitaria
     their homes and the workplace in a company vehicle            Locale ( USL ) No 58 di Palermo — on the interpretation of
     serves, in principle, the employees ' private purposes        Article 177 of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of Council
     and thus serves purposes other than those of the               Directive 86/457/EEC of 15 September 1986 on specific
     business. However, that provision does not apply              training in general medical practice ( OJ L 267, 19. 9 .
     when, having regard to certain circumstances, such as          1986, p. 26 ) — the. Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of:
     the difficulty of finding other suitable means of              C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C.
     transport and changes in the place of work, the                Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur) and
     requirements of the business make it necessary for the        J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
     employer to provide transport for employees, in which          Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
     case the supply of those transport services is not             judgment on 16 October 1997, in which it has ruled :
     effected for purposes other than those of the business.
                                                                    1 . When it issues an opinion in the context of an
                                                                         extraordinary petition, the Consiglio di Stato
                                                                         constitutes a court or tribunal for the purposes of
 3 . The answer to the second question also applies when                 Article 177 of the EC Treaty.
      the employer does not convey the employees in its
      own vehicles, but commissions one of its employees to
     provide the transport using his own private vehicle.           2 . Article 36 (2) of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of
                                                                         5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of
                                                                         doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas,
                                                                         certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications
 (') OJ C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .                                         — which replaced Article 7 (2) of Council Directive
                                                                         86/457/EEC of 15 September 1986 on specific training
                                                                         in general medical practice — is to be interpreted as
                                                                         meaning that a Member State may determine the
                                                                         acquired right of practitioners of general medicine as
                                                                         regards situations prior to 1 January 1995, provided
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 11 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the .European Communities                                     C 357/ 11
     only that it recognizes the rights of doctors established            The anti-dumping duties imposed pursuant to Article 1 of
     in practice there, under Council Directive 75/362/EEC                Commission Decision No 2131 /88/ECSC of 18 July 1988
     of 16 June 1975 concerning the mutual recognition of                 — imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
     diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal                  certain sheets and plates, of iron or steel, originating in
     qualifications in medicine, including measures to                    Yugoslavia and definitively collecting the provisional anti
     facilitate the effective exercise of the right of                    dumping duty imposed on those imports — on imports of
     establishment and freedom to provide services, before                certain steel products 'originating in Yugoslavia ' also
     1 January 1995 to practise general medicine under its                apply to products of that kind manufactured by a
     national social security scheme, even if they have no                producer/exporter who had been established in the
     specific training in general medical practice and have               Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but was in fact
     not established a service relationship with that State 's            — by reason of the Former Yugoslav Republic of
     social security scheme.                                              Macedonia 's declaration of independence — situated in
                                                                          the FYROM at the time when the products in question
                                                                          were imported.
(') OJ C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .
                                                                          (>) OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( Sixth Chamber)                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 16 October 1997                                                         (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 October 1997
in Case C- 177/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Antwerpen): Belgian                    in Case C-304/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
State v. Banque Indosuez and Others and European                          the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Liguria):
                             Community (')                                Hera SpA v. Unità Sanitaria Locale No 3 — Genovese
                                                                                ( USL ) and Impresa Romagnoli SpA (*)
(Dumping — Sheets or plates, of iron or steel, originating
in Yugoslavia — Declaration of independence of the                        (Directive     93/37/EEC — Public procurement                —
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia — Legal                                                  Abnormally low tenders)
                                certainty)
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/20 )
                             ( 97/C 357/ 19 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          In Case C-304/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                          of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale Amministrativo
In Case C- 177/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177              Regionale ( Regional Administrative Court), Liguria ( Italy ),
of the EC Treaty from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg                     for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
( Court of First Instance ), Antwerp ( Belgium ), for a                   that court between Hera SpA and Unita Sanitaria Locale
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                 No 3 — Genovese ( USL ) and Impresa Romagnoli SpA —
court between Belgian State and Banque Indosuez and                       on the interpretation of Article 30 (4 ) of Council Directive
Others and European Community — on the interpretation                     93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination
of Commission Decision No 2131/88/ECSC of 18 July                         of procedures for the award of public works contracts ( OJ
1988 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports                   L 199, 9 . 8 . 1983 , p. 54 ) — the Court ( Fourth Chamber),
of certain sheets and plates, of iron or steel, originating in            composed of: H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), President of
Yugoslavia and definitively collecting the provisional anti              the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and J. L. Murray, Judges;
dumping duty imposed on those imports ( OJ L 188 , 19 . 7.                C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
1988 , p. 14 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of:                given a judgment on 16 October 1997, in which it has
                                                                          ruled :
H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen,
G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and G.
Hirsch, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 October 1997, in                    Article 30 (4) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June
which it has ruled :                                                      1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the


title: Case T-782/14 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2014 by DF against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 1 October 2014 in Case F-91/13, DF v Commission

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/28

         Appeal brought on 24 November 2014 by DF against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 1 October 2014 in Case F-91/13, DF v Commission
   (Case T-782/14 P)
   (2015/C 089/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: DF (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. von Zwehl, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2014 in Case F-91/13 DF v Commission, in so far as the action of the appellant as to the remainder was dismissed by the Tribunal;

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 20 December 2012;

               —

               order the European Commission to reimburse the amounts already recovered by it to the appellant, plus late interest at the European Central Bank rate, increased by 2 points; and

               —

               declare that the European Commission bears all costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and the principle of legal certainty, in that the Civil Service Tribunal, in line with relevant case-law, should have come to the conclusion that it cannot be reasonably argued that one or the other of the two possible interpretations of Article 4 (1) (b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, namely whether the reference period of 10 years ends with the initial entry into service or with the entering into service at the entity of secondment, is so manifestly unfounded, that article 85 applies;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination and of Article 19 TUE, in that, due to the application of diverging and incompatible national and EU law on unjust enrichment, the appellant is discriminated against compared to a situation in which only the national legal order applies, as he is not allowed to invoke against the Commission the fact that enrichment does not exist anymore;

               3.

               Third plea in law, invoking non-contractual liability of the EU, in that by deciding that the overpayment must be considered unlawful and imposing on the applicant to reimburse the overpayment to the Commission, damage to the detriment of the appellant has occurred.


title: Case T-81/04: Actionbrought on 21 February 2004 by Bouygues SA andBouygues Télécom against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/76

         Action brought on 21 February 2004 by Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-81/04)
   (2004/C 106/150)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 February 2004 by Bouygues SA, having its registered office in Paris, and Bouygues Télécom, having its registered office in Boulogne Billancourt (France), represented by Bernard Amory and Alexandre Verheyden, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to define its position within the period of two months commencing on the date of the letter of formal notice of 12 November 2003, the Commission has failed to act;

               —

               in the alternative, declare the Commission's definition of its position of 11 December 2003 to be void;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The subject-matter of this action is the complaint lodged by the applicants with the defendant concerning inter alia the aid granted by the French State to ORANGE FRANCE and SFR by way of a retroactive reduction in the royalty payments of EUR 4 955 000 000 which each of those operators had undertaken to pay in exchange for the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (‘UMTS’) licence awarded to them on 15 June 2001. The other complaints raised by the applicants related to:

               —

               the making available on an exclusive basis of FRANCE TELECOM outlets for the benefit of ORANGE FRANCE;

               —

               the exceptional arrangements for commercial tax applying to FRANCE TELECOM;

               —

               the reduction in liability for pension charges and the exemption from unemployment benefit contributions granted to FRANCE TELECOM;

               —

               the French rules relating to universal service;

               —

               the treatment of dividends paid by FRANCE TELECOM;

               —

               the measures of financial support granted to FRANCE TELECOM.

         As regards the action for a declaration of failure to act, the applicants claim that the Commission has still not defined its position in relation to the UMTS complaint, which was none the less the subject of the letter of formal notice, and that the letter of 11 December 2003 sent to them by the Commission in response to their letter of formal notice cannot amount to a definition of its position in terms of Article 232 EC. That letter simply noted that the consideration of measures potentially amounting to State aid for the benefit of FRANCE TELECOM was one of the Commission's priorities, without stating an opinion on the merits of the complaint in question. Accordingly, having regard to the omissions in its reasoning, that letter could not be treated as having remedied the failure to act.
   As regards the application brought in the alternative for a declaration of invalidity relating to the decision of 11 December 2003 which dismissed the complaint, the applicants rely on three pleas in law based on:

               —

               breach of the duty to state reasons;

               —

               a manifest error of assessment under Article 87 EC et seq., in that the retroactive reduction in the amount of UMTS royalties which ORANGE FRANCE and SFR had originally undertaken to pay met all the requirements of a measure constituting State aid;

               —

               a breach of the procedural rules laid down in Article 88(3) EC, in that the Commission wrongly decided, having regard to the circumstances of the case, not to initiate the formal investigation procedure laid down under that provision.


title: Case C-505/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 September 2013 — Levent Redzheb Yumer v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na NAP — Varna

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/50

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 September 2013 — Levent Redzheb Yumer v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na NAP — Varna
   (Case C-505/13)
   2013/C 344/87
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Levent Redzheb Yumer

      Defendant: Teritorialna direktsia na NAP — Varna

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allow that only one category of persons — natural persons registered under the Zakon za danak varhu dobavenata stoynost (Law on value added tax, ‘ZDDS’) — has no legally recognised right to a tax reduction in respect of an agricultural activity?

               2.

               Do Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allow the setting of different tax rates for the same type of activity depending on the legal form of the exercise of that activity and registration under the ZDDS?

               3.

               Is the introduction of internal measures which result in natural persons registered under the ZDDS and as farmers being denied a tax reduction that is provided for sole traders and legal persons — although they have fulfilled their legal obligations to constitute their taxable income in the same way as sole traders and to determine their annual basis of assessment in the same way as sole traders — an infringement of the principles of legal certainty, effectiveness and proportionality?


title: Action brought on 26 January 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland (Case C-21/98)

text:
7.3.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 72/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                    The Applicant claims that the Court should:
Circondariale di Torino, by order of 18 December 1997,
       in the case of Battital Srl v. Regione Piemonte               1) declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                        (Case C-14/98)                                   or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                         Council Directive 94/28/EC of 23 June 1994 laying
                         (98/C 72/24)                                    down the principles relating to the zootechnical and
                                                                         genealogical conditions applicable to imports from
                                                                         third countries of animals, their semen, ova and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   embryos (1), and amending Directive 77/504/EEC (2)
European Communities by order of 18 December 1997                        on pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species,
from the Pretura Circondariale di Torino (District                       Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
Magistrate's Court, Turin), which was received at the                    Directive and under the Treaty, and
Court Registry on 22 January 1998, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Battital Srl v. Regione Piemonte               2) order Ireland to pay the costs.
(Region of Piedmont), on the following questions:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1. Having regard to Article 1 of Directive 95/40/EC of
    19 July 1995 (1), Article 2 of Directive 96/14/Euratom,          Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
    ECSC, EC of 12 March 1996 (2) and Article 1 of                   be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
    Directive 96/15/EC of 14 March 1996 (3), does the                Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
    ban on the importation of organisms of the Citrus                Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
    genus still apply in Italy (or in any region of Italy)?          down in the directive. That period expired on 1 July 1995
                                                                     without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary to
                                                                     comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
2. Did that ban cease to apply with effect from 1 April              the Commission.
    1996?
                                                                     (1) OJ L 178, 12.7.1994, p. 66.
                                                                     (2) OJ L 206, 12.8.1977, p. 8.
3. Is the Ministerial Decree of 31 January 1996 of
    the Ministry of Agricultural Resources, which
    incorporated Directive 95/40/EC, incompatible, so far
    as the relevant provisions are concerned, with the
    discontinuance of the ban on imports into Italian
    territory (or into any part thereof) of plant organisms
    of the Citrus genus, as would appear to result from              Action brought on 28 January 1998 by the Commission of
    the combined effect of Directive 95/40/EC of 19 July                         the European Communities v. Ireland
    1995, Article 2 of Directive 96/14/Euratom, ECSC, EC                                      (Case C-24/98)
    of 12 March 1996 and Article 1 of Directive 96/15/EC
    of 14 March 1996?                                                                          (98/C 72/26)
(1) OJ L 182, 2.8.1995, p. 14.                                       An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
(2) OJ L 68, 19.3.1996, p. 24.                                       Justice of the European Communities on 28 January 1998
(3) OJ L 70, 20.3.1996, p. 35.                                       by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                     represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, principal legal
                                                                     adviser, and Mr Michael Shotter, a national official
                                                                     seconded to the Commission under an arrangement for the
                                                                     exchange of officials, acting as agents, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gómez
                                                                     de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
Action brought on 26 January 1998 by the Commission of               Commission, Centre Wagner.
            the European Communities v. Ireland
                        (Case C-21/98)                               The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (98/C 72/25)
                                                                     Ð declare that, by failing to notify the laws, regulations
                                                                         or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                Directive 94/22/EC of 30 May 1994 aiming at
Justice of the European Communities on 26 January 1998                   establishing the conditions for granting and using
by the Commission of the European Communities,                           authorizations for the prospection, exploration and
represented by Mr James Macdonald Flett, a member of                     production of hydrocarbons (1), or by failing to adopt
its Legal Service, acting as agent, with an address for                  the measures necessary to comply with it, Ireland has
service in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gómez                   failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive, and
de la Cruz, also a member of its Legal Service, Centre
Wagner.                                                              Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.


title: Case C-393/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 30 June 2017 — Openbaar Ministerie v Freddy Lucien Magdalena Kirschstein, Thierry Frans Adeline Kirschstein

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 30 June 2017 — Openbaar Ministerie v Freddy Lucien Magdalena Kirschstein, Thierry Frans Adeline Kirschstein
   (Case C-393/17)
   (2017/C 300/23)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Openbaar Ministerie

      Respondents: Freddy Lucien Magdalena Kirschstein, Thierry Frans Adeline Kirschstein

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market be interpreted as precluding the provision in Article II.75(6) of the Codex of Higher Education of 11 October 2013 which imposes a general prohibition on non-accredited educational institutions using the designation ‘master’ on the diplomas they award, where that prohibition is aimed at safeguarding a matter in the general interest, namely, the need to ensure a high standard of education whereby it must be possible to check whether the predefined quality requirements have effectively been met?

               2.

               Must Directive 2006/123/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market be interpreted as precluding the provision in Article II.75(6) of the Codex of Higher Education of 11 October 2013, which imposes a general prohibition on non-accredited educational institutions using the designation ‘master’ on the diplomas they award, where that prohibition is aimed at safeguarding a matter in the general interest, namely the protection of recipients of services?

               3.

               Does the criminal provision applicable to educational institutions not recognised by the Flemish Government which award ‘masters’’ diplomas pass the proportionality test in Articles 9(1)(c) and 10(2)(c) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market?

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.


24.1.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 21/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  Removal from the register of Case C-135/02 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/54)
Various provisions adopted by several German Länder (con-
forming to the Federal Model Form of a Furnace Regulation of
24 February 1995) are, in the Commission’s view, incompat-                By order of 30 September 2003 the President of the Court of
ible with Directive 90/396/EEC on gas-fuelled appliances.                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Those provisions relate to:                                               from the register of Case C-135/02: Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
—      gas boilers with a thermal output of more than 50 kw,
       which may be installed only in separate rooms;
                                                                          (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
—      certain gas boilers which must be equipped with a
       safety device which prevents the concentration of carbon
       monoxide in the air from exceeding 30 ppm; and
—      gas boilers which must be equipped with a device which,
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-142/02 (1)
       in certain circumstances, closes off the gas supply.
                                                                                (2004/C 21/55)
This gives rise to an impediment to the placing on the
market in the Länder concerned of appliances satisfying the
requirements of the Directive because, in those Länder, matters           By order of 15 September 2003 the President of the Court of
already governed by the Directive, such as the installation of            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
appliances only in rooms which do not constitute living space,            from the register of Case C-142/02: Commission of the
protection from the release of unburned gas, risk of explosion,           European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
etc., are subject to additional regulation by national provisions.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
The Federal Republic of Germany takes the view that, having
regard to the public safety of persons and the protection of life
and health of persons against general risks posed by fuel-
burning installations, the Member States are competent to
increase as appropriate the safety levels of such fuel-burning                   Removal from the register of Case C-228/02 (1)
installations on the basis of national building regulations. The
Commission rejects that line of argument, pointing out that,                                      (2004/C 21/56)
in accordance with the ‘New Approach’ concept, the Directive
contains a comprehensive set of rules on the matters covered
by it so that the adoption of additional national provisions              By order of 17 September 2003 the President of the Second
governing that area no longer comes into question.                        Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case C-228/02:
(1) OJ 1990 L 196, p. 15.                                                 Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of
                                                                          Luxembourg.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-157/01 P
                        and C-169/01 P (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-229/02 (1)
                          (2004/C 21/53)                                                          (2004/C 21/57)
By order of 17 July 2003 the President of the Court of Justice            By order of 18 September 2003 the President of the Court of
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
register of Joined Cases C-157/01 P and C-169/01 P: Federal               from the register of Case C-229/02 (Reference for a preliminary
Republic of Germany v RAG Aktiengesellschaft and UK Coal                  ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt): Tenderer: debis/AC and
v Commission of the European Communities.                                 Others v Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversi-
                                                                          cherungsträger.
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001, OJ C 168 of 30.6.2001.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.


title: Case C-247/05: Order of the President of the Court of  7 February 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/14

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-247/05) (1)

   (2006/C 154/36)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 03.09.2005.


title: Case T-541/10: Action brought on 22 November 2010 — ADEDI and Others v Council of the European Union

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/49

         Action brought on 22 November 2010 — ADEDI and Others v Council of the European Union
   (Case T-541/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/88
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: Anotati Diikisi Enoseon Dimosion Ipallilon (Supreme Administration of Public Servants’ Unions; ADEDI) (Athens, Greece), S. Papaspiros (Athens, Greece) and I. Iliopoulos (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Tsipra, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the Council Decision of 7 September 2010 amending Decision 2010/320/EU addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 14 September 2010 (OJ 2010 L 241, p. 12) under No 2010/486/EU;

               —

               annul the Council Decision of 8 June 2010 addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 11 June 2010 (OJ 2010 L 145, p. 6) under No 2010/320/EU;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this action, the applicants seek the annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union of 7 September 2010 amending Decision 2010/320/EU addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 14 September 2010 (OJ 2010 L 241, p. 12) under No 2010/486/EU, and the annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union of 8 June 2010 addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 11 June 2010 (OJ 2010 L 145, p. 6) under No 2010/320/EU.
   The applicants advance the following grounds in support of their pleas.
   First, the applicants submit that the powers of the European Commission and the Council conferred by the Treaties were exceeded in the adoption of the contested decisions. More specifically, Articles 4 and 5 of the Treaties introduce the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. In addition, under Article 5(2) of the Treaties it is expressly provided that any competence not conferred by the Member States on the European Union remains with the Member States. Pursuant to Article 126 et seq. of the Treaties, the measures which may be decided upon by the Council under the excessive deficit procedure and included in its decisions cannot be prescribed specifically, explicitly and without room for deviation, since that competence is not conferred upon the Council by the Treaties.
   Second, the applicants maintain that the powers conferred by the Treaties on the European Commission and the Council were exceeded in the adoption of the contested decisions and that those decisions are, in their content, contrary to the Treaties. More specifically, the legal basis relied upon for the adoption of the contested decisions is Articles 126(9) and 136 of the Treaty. However, they were adopted in a manner that exceeded the powers of the European Commission and the Council conferred by those articles, simply as a measure implementing a bilateral agreement between the 15 Member States of the Euro zone, which decided to grant the bilateral loans, and Greece. Such a competence for adoption of a measure on the part of the Council is neither recognised nor prescribed by the Treaties.
   Third, the applicants maintain that, in introducing pay and pension reductions, the contested decisions affect acquired property rights of the applicants and were accordingly adopted in breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.


title: Action brought on 24 May 1996 by Christos Apostolidis and 64 others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-81/96)

text:
 No C 233/ 14           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10 . 8 . 96
 Commission in order to combat the difficulties caused by               she carried out in Portugal , as an employee in the private
the tropical storms 'Debbie', ' Iris ', 'Luis ' and 'Marilyn' that      sector, various duties as an 'empregada ' and 'escriturâria ',
adaptation of the tariff quota should have enabled, and                 involving work as a secretary and/or shorthand typist.
 must enable, the Community market to be adequately
 supplied and compensation to be paid to operators who                  The applicant maintains that there has been a breach of the
have suffered damage through being unable to supply the                 notice of competition and a manifest error of assessment.
 Community market with bananas from the regions or                      The special conditions for admission to the competition in
countries affected by the disaster, and that analogous                  question included point ( d ), which required an in-depth
measures were previously taken by the national authorities              knowledge of the French language . In addition, point ( d ) of
 before the common organization of the market took effect.              those special conditions required candidates to show that, at
There was, and therefore still is, an obligation to take the            the date of publication of the notice of competition, they had
same action in the context of that organization . These                 two years ' professional experience as a secretary and/or
arguments are also valid in the case of the insufficient                shorthand typist. The conditions laid down by the notice of
availability of Somalian bananas , since the fact that this was         competition do not state that the professional experience
caused by a war rather than a cyclone is of little                      required has to have been obtained in French . According to
relevance .                                                             the applicant, however, the express rejection clearly
                                                                        establishes that, having regard to the nature of the
On that basis, Camar views the Commission's failure to                  competition, only activities carried on within the
adopt measures as a breach of the principles underlying the             Commission could be regarded as valid experience for the
common organization of the market in bananas, namely                    purposes of the competition .
that all economic operators should be protected, that
Community rules should be adapted in the face of                        Second, the selection board committed a manifest error of
unforeseen or special difficulties, and that there may be no            assessment in considering that the terms 'empregada ' and
discrimination .
                                                                        'escrituraria ' do not necessarily entail work as a secretary or
                                                                        shorthand typist .
Action brought on 24 May 1996 by Ana Maria Fernandes
 Leite Mateus against the Council of the European Union
                          ( Case T-80/96 )                              Action brought on 24 May 1996 by Christos Apostolidis
                            ( 96/C 233 /25 )                            and 64 others against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                 (Language of tbe case: French)                                                 ( Case T-81/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 233/26 )
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                              (Language of the case: French)
Communities on 24 May 1 996 by Ana Maria Fernandes
Leite Mateus, residing at Zaventem ( Belgium ), represented
by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel ,              An action against the Commission of the European
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl , 1 Rue             Instance of the European Communities on 24 May 1996 by
Glesener .                                                              Christos Apostolidis and 64 others, all employed in the
                                                                       European Institute for Transuranic Elements ( Karlsruhe ),
                                                                       represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
— annul the decision of the selection board in competition             Sàrl , 1 Rue Glesener.
    Conseil/C/360 of 3 October 1995 not to admit her to the
    competition,
                                                                       The applicants claim that the Court should :
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                       — declare that the Commission has acted wrongfully by
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         failing to adopt the measures required in order to comply
                                                                            with the judgment of the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
The applicant, an official of the Commission, contests the                  Chamber ) of 27 October 1994 in Case T-64/92 ,
decision of the selection board not to admit her to the tests in
competition Conseil/C/360 for the constitution of a reserve            — annul        the   Commission's      decision   rejecting     the
for future recruitment of French-language secretaries, on the               applicants ' request for the drawing-up of their pay slips
ground that she had failed to show that she had two years '                 for January 1992 and for the payment to each applicant
professional experience as a secretary and/or shorthand                     of the sum of Bfrs 50 000 by way of compensation for
typist . She states in that regard that between 1973 and 1979               the non-material damage suffered,
 ---pagebreak--- 10 . 8 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 233/ 15
— order the Commission to pay to each applicant, as                   Action brought on 29 May 1996 by Associaçâo dos
     compensation for the non-material damage suffered , the          Refinadores de Açucar Portugueses ( ARAP), Alcantara
     sum of Bfrs 50 000,                                              Refinarias — Açucares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açucar
                                                                      Reunidas SA against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                                ( Case T-82/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 233 /27 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicants, Commission officials employed in the
Institute for Transuranic Elements, Karlsruhe, state that
they were also the applicants in Case T-64/92 , in which              An action against the Commission of the European
judgment was delivered by the Court of First Instance on              Communities was brought before the Court of First
27 October 1994 . In that judgment, the Court of First                Instance of the European Communities on 29 May 1996 by
Instance annulled their pay slips for January 1 992 , in so far       Associaçâo dos Refinadores de Açucar Portugueses ( ARAP ),
as they applied a weighting for Germany calculated by                 Alcantara Refinarias — Açucares SA and RAR Refinarias de
reference to the cost of living in Bonn , although Berlin had         Açucar Reunidas SA, represented by Gerard van der Wal ,
since October 1990 become the capital of the Federal                  member of the Bar of the Netherlands Supreme Court ( Orde
Republic of Germany . The applicants also state that the              van Advocaten bij de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden ), of
appointing authority had agreed to extend the effects of the          Barents & Krans, Advocaten Notarissen, with an address
judgment of the Court of First Instance to all pay slips drawn        for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 31
                                                                      Grand Rue .
up after January 1992 , in so far as they apply a weighting
calcualted by reference to the cost of living in Bonn .
                                                                      The applicants claim that the Court should :
In consequence of the judgment of the Court of First
Instance, the Commission sent to the Council a proposal for           — déclaré the application admissible ,
the fixing, with retroactive effect from 1 October 1990 , of a
weighting for Germany calculated on the basis of the cost of
living in Berlin , as well as specific weightings for Bonn and        — declare the decisions of 11 January 1996 and/or
                                                                          19 March 1996 and/or 23 November 1995 void :
Karlsruhe . At its meeting on 19 December 1994 , the Council
adopted Regulation ( EEC ) No 3161 /94 adjusting, with
effect from 1 July 1994, the remuneration and pensions of                 — 11 January 1996 ( SG ( 96 ) D/ 1245 aid No N 1 1 /95 ),
officials and other servants of the European Communities                      sent to the applicants on 1 April 1996 ,
and the weightings applied thereto, which provides , in
particular, for the fixing, in accordance with the                        — 19 March 1996 ( VI/012420 ) relating to complaint
Commission proposal , of a specific weighting for Karlsruhe .                 No 94/5122 , and
It nevertheless decided to send to Coreper the proposal for
the retroactived fixing of weightings for Germany .                       — 23 November 1995 ( Aid No N 832/95 ) ('),
                                                                      — order the Commission to pay the applicants 1 costs .
The applicants consider that, as a result of the annulment by
the Court of First Instance of their pay slips for January
 1992 ( which annulment must necessarily extend to all pay            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
slips drawn up subsequently ), it was incumbent on the
Commission to draw up new pay slips applying to the
remuneration, in the absence of a specific weighting for              The applicants state that on November 1994 they sent a
Karlsruhe, a weighting calculated by reference to the cost of         complaint to the Commission requesting it to initiate the
 living in the capital of the country . They consider that, by        procedure provided for in Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty
 refusing to do so , the Commission has infringed Article 176         concerning the State aid granted by the Portuguese
 of the EC Treaty.                                                    Government to DAI ( Sociedade de Desinvolvemento
                                                                      Agro-Industrial ) for the establishment of a beet-sugar
                                                                      factory . On 12 December 1994 , the Commission informed
The applicants further maintain that the Commission has               the applicants that it had decided not to initiate the
 breached its duty to have regard for the welfare and interests       procedure or to take the other measures requested . As the
 of officials ( Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of officials ),   letter appeared to constitute a decision confirming the
 and has infringed Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations        approval of the national aid schemes under Articles 92 and
 and Annex XI thereto , inasmuch as the proposals submitted           93 of the EC Treaty and contained the refusal of the
 by it to the Council unlawfully provide for the fixing, with         measures requested , the applicants brought an action
 retroactive effect, of a specific weighting for Karlsruhe .          against that decision before the Court of First Instance ( 2 ). In
                                                                      that case the Commission lodged an objection of
                                                                       inadmissibility in which it emphasized that it had not yet
                                                                      reached a final position . Under those circumstances , the
                                                                      applicants sent new complaints to the Commission .


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2001 in Case T-73/94: Bernard Beusmans v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk — Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having entered into a non-marketing undertaking — Non-resumption of production on expiry of the undertaking — Withdrawal of the provisional reference quantity)

text:
C 134/14               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.5.2001
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 31 January 2001                                                      of 31 January 2001
in Case T-533/93: Edouard Bouma v Council of the                        in Case T-73/94: Bernard Beusmans v Council of the
European Union and Commission of the European Com-                      European Union and Commission of the European Com-
                            munities (1)                                                            munities (1)
(Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —                (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —
Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having                  Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having
entered into a non-marketing undertaking — Non-resump-                  entered into a non-marketing undertaking — Non-resump-
       tion of production on expiry of the undertaking)                 tion of production on expiry of the undertaking — With-
                                                                                drawal of the provisional reference quantity)
                         (2001/C 134/29)
                                                                                (2001/C 134/30)
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case T-533/93: Edouard Bouma, residing in Rutten (Nether-
lands), represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and H.J. Bronk-           In Case T-73/94: Bernard Beusmans, residing in Noorbeek
horst, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in             (Netherlands), represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and
Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue                     H.J. Bronkhorst, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for
Guillaume, against Council of the European Union (Agent:                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden,
A.-M. Colaert) and Commission of the European Communities               62 Avenue Guillaume, against Council of the European Union
(Agent: by T. van Rijn) — application for compensation under            (Agent: A.-M. Colaert) and Commission of the European
Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC           Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and H.-J. Rabe) — appli-
Treaty (now Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of                  cation for compensation under Article 178 and the second
Article 288 EC) for damage suffered by the applicant as a               paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235
result of his having been prevented from marketing milk by              EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for damage
virtue of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March                suffered by the applicant as a result of his having been
1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy             prevented from marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation
referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the          (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for
milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as                 the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of
supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84                  Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products
of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules for the application           sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by Commission
of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation          Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down
(EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11) — the Court of First             detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President,            to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1984
R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio                    L 132, p. 11) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-          composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and
ment on 31 January 2001, in which it:                                   P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for
                                                                        the Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 January 2001, in
                                                                        which it:
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                        1.    Dismisses the application;
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                        2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 334 of 9.12.93.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 90 of 26.3.94.


title: Case F-36/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 March 2012 — Rapone v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Successive applications for an open competition — Refusal to register)

text:
               2.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 157/12

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 March 2012 — Rapone v Commission
   (Case F-36/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Open competition - Successive applications for an open competition - Refusal to register)
   2012/C 157/20
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Chiara Rapone (Rome, Italy) (represented initially by A. Rapone, lawyer and subsequently by L. Rapone, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision of EPSO not to register the application to take part in open competition EPSO/AD/177/10 submitted by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               The application is dismissed;

               2.

               Ms Rapone is to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010, p. 54.


title: Case C-499/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by The Dow Chemical Company, Dow Deutschland Inc., Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH, Dow Europe GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-42/07: The Dow Chemical Company and others v European Commission

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/11

         Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by The Dow Chemical Company, Dow Deutschland Inc., Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH, Dow Europe GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-42/07: The Dow Chemical Company and others v European Commission
   (Case C-499/11 P)
   2011/C 355/18
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: The Dow Chemical Company, Dow Deutschland Inc., Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH, Dow Europe GmbH (represented by: D. Schroeder, Rechtsanwalt, T. Kuhn, Rechtsanwalt, T. Graf, Advocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               The Dow Chemical Company respectfully requests the Court of Justice to set aside the General Court's judgment in Case T-42/07 in so far as it dismisses its request to annul the Commission's decision of 29 November 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.638 insofar as it relates to it;

               —

               The Dow Chemical Company respectfully requests the Court of Justice to annul the Commission's decision of 29 November 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.638 insofar as it relates to it;

               —

               All Appellants respectfully request the Court of Justice to set aside the General Court's judgment in Case T-42/07 in so far as it dismisses their request to substantially reduce their fines;

               —

               All Appellants respectfully request the Court of Justice to substantially reduce their fines;

               —

               All Appellants respectfully request the Court of Justice

                           —

                           to order the Commission to pay the Appellants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter; and

                           —

                           take any other measures that this Court considers appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal contains four pleas. According to the first plea, the General Court erred in law by assuming that the Commission does not have to exercise its discretion properly and by not exercising the full scope of judicial review with regard to the exercise of the Commission's discretion in holding The Dow Chemical Company liable. According to the second plea, the General Court erred in law with respect to the differential treatment applied to the starting amounts of the fine. According to the third plea, the General Court erred in law by confirming that the Commission was entitled to take The Dow Chemical Company's turnover into account. According to the fourth plea, the General Court erred in law by confirming that the Commission's application of the deterrence multiplier is not discriminatory.