title: Case T-78/00: Action brought on 3 April 2000 by Sumitomo Metal Industries Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
27.5.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 149/43
— The evaluation carried out of the safety and efficacy of                 — The Commission based its conclusions on an incorrect
     amfepramon has no valid scientific basis. Criteria were used              analysis of the relevant market, contrary to its own
     for assessment which are applicable only in procedures for                decisional practice.
     new authorisations or extensions. Such procedures are,
     however, within the competence of the Member States.                  — Contrary to the findings in the contested decision, Telecom
     The decision is therefore also void on the ground of misuse               Éireann abused its dominant position by refusing to
     of powers.                                                                provide proper access to the applicant, by offering bundled
                                                                               access conditions on a retail basis and by discriminating
                                                                               between the access conditions granted to the applicant and
(1) Second Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the                  other telecommunications operators.
    approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or
    administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products
    (OJ 1975 L 147, p. 13).                                                — Basing itself on the assumption that the available evidence
(2) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-             was insufficient to prove that Telecom Éireann abused
    mation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrat-          its dominant position, the applicant submits that the
    ive action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ, English         Commission misused its powers by refusing to conduct the
    Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 20).                                         additional proceedings required to establish this evidence.
Action brought on 3 April 2000 by Esat Telecommuni-                        Action brought on 3 April 2000 by Sumitomo Metal
cations Ltd., against the Commission of the European                       Industries Limited against the Commission of the Euro-
                             Communities                                                         pean Communities
                            (Case T-77/00)                                                          (Case T-78/00)
                           (2000/C 149/79)                                                         (2000/C 149/80)
                     (Language of the case: English)                                         (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 April 2000 by Esat Telecom-                      European Communities on 3 April 2000 by Sumitomo Metal
munications Ltd., Dublin, represented by Bernard Amory and                 Industries Limited, Osaka (Japan), represented by Christopher
Alexandre Verheyden of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Brussels.               Vajda QC and David Aitman, Solicitor.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare the defendant’s decision of 18 January 2000 to be                — annul Articles 1 to 5 of the decision in so far as they are
     void;                                                                     addressed to the applicant;
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                    — alternatively, annul Article 4 of the decision in so far as it
                                                                               imposes a fine of 13.5 million euro on SMI and fix a
                                                                               substantially lower fine;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           — order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
The applicant is a licensed provider of telecommunications
services in Ireland. In 1996 it lodged an application for the
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
initiation of a procedure to establish the existence of an
infringement of Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82
EC) by Telecom Éireann (now called Eircom). The alleged                   According to the applicant, the contested decision finds two
infringement related to the withdrawal by Telecom Éireann of              sets of agreements that infringe Article 81 EC. The first set was
the standard discounts, which it made available to its large-              found to exist between four European producers of seamless
volume end users and to its failure to provide the applicant               standard OCTG and line pipe and four Japanese producers,
with equitable interconnection tariffs. The applicant seeks at             including the applicant (‘EU/Japan agreement’). The second
present the annulment of the Commission decision rejecting                 agreement was found to exist between the European producers
its complaint in particular on following grounds:                          (‘EU Agreement’).
 ---pagebreak--- C 149/44              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 27.5.2000
The applicant raises five main pleas:                                     applicant to be heard on the conclusion reached at recital
                                                                          164 of the contested decision.
— The evidence does not support the finding that there was
                                                                      — No fine should have been imposed on the applicant;
   an EU/Japan agreement which prohibited sales by Japanese
   producers in the domestic territories of the European                  alternatively, the fine imposed should be substantially
   producers. Nor is there evidence that the Japanese pro-                reduced.
   ducers were party to any agreement including a prohibition
   on sales by the European producers in their domestic
   territories.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-599/97 (1)
— Even if there was sufficient evidence to establish an
                                                                                (2000/C 149/81)
   infringement, the infringement is of a considerably narrow-
   er scope than is found in the decision.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
— The evidence does not support the finding that the
   restrictions in the EU agreement were the inevitable and           By order of 17 January 2000, the President of the Second
   necessary consequence of the EU/Japan agreement.                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
— The Commission has infringed Article 56 of the EEA                  Case T-599/97: Swedish Match Advertising Products NV/SA v
   Agreement by initiating its own investigation prior to the         Council of the European Union.
   formal transfer of the file from the EFTA Surveillance
   Authority. Furthermore, it has breached the right of the           (1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du Travail de Bruxelles, by judgment of that court of 21 April 1997, in the case of Barry Bank and Others against the Théâtre Royal de la Monnaie (Case C-178/97)

text:
No C 212/ 14           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            12 . 7 . 97
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            provisions . The purpose of the agreement is not even to
                                                                        protect the natural environment.
— declare that, by failing to adopt special conservation
     measures concerning the habitats of birds in the Seine             Breach of Article 4 ( 4 ) of the Directive
     estuary and to take appropriate steps to avoid
     deterioration of those habitats, the French Republic               The establishment of a plant for the treatment            and deposit
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 79/           of titanogypsum in the estuary constitutes                a manifest
     409/EEC ( 1 ),
                                                                        deterioration of the habitat in question . No             importance
                                                                        can be attached to the fact that the plant is             outside the
— order the French Republic to pay the costs .                          area designated a SPA. The plant is in an                 area which
                                                                        should have been designated a SPA.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     (') Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
                                                                             conservation of wild birds ( OJ No L 103 , 25 . 4 . 1979 , p. 1 ).
The Seine estuary is one of the most important wetland
areas on the French coast from the ornithological point of
view and is visited by numerous species listed in Annex I
to Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild
birds . According to a scientific inventory of important
areas for the conservation of birds ( Zones Importantes                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du
pour la conservation des Oiseaux ( ZICO )) published in                 Travail de Bruxelles, by judgment of that court of 21 April
1994 under the auspices of the French Ministry of the                   1997, in the case of Barry Bank and Others against the
Environment, an area covering 21 900 hectares in the                                         Theatre Royal de la Monnaie
Seine estuary is identified as a site of major interest                                              Case C-178/97)
harbouring a number of wild birds regarded as being of
Community or international significance according to                                                  ( 97/C 212/24 )
classification criteria corresponding to those contained in
Directive 79/409/EEC .
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du
Breach       of     Article    4    (1 )   and     (2)   of   the       Travail de Bruxelles ( Brussels Labour Court ) of 21 April
Directive
                                                                        1997, received at the Court Registry on 7 May 1997, for
                                                                        a preliminary ruling in the case of Barry Bank and Others
The French authorities concluded an agreement with the                  against the Theatre Royal de la Monnaie on the following
                                                                        questions:
independent ports of Le Havre and Rouen to create a
reserve area of 3 350 hectares, made up of 2 000 hectares
of predominantly ecological interest and 1 300 hectares                 I.     1 . Does the concept of 'work' in Article 14a ( 1 ) ( a ) of
for industrial and port use where the natural environment                            Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 (') refer to any
would be preserved until they were used. 2 750 hectares of                           work, whether paid employment or self
that agreed reserve were designated a special protection                             employment, the duration of which does not
area ( SPA ) within the meaning of the Directive.                                    exceed 12 months ?
The surface of the SPA thus delimited is completely                            2 . If the concept of 'work' within the meaning of
inadequate and bears no relation to the significance of the                          Article 14 ( 1 ) ( a ) refers exclusively to work by a
ornithological site . It is clear from the Court's judgment of                       self-employed person, should this concept be
2 August 1993 in Case C-355/90 ( Commission v. Spain                                 defined by reference to the social security
 [ 1993 ] ECR p. 4221 ), that although Member States have a                          legislation of the Member State in which the
certain margin of discretion with regard to the choice of                            person is normally self-employed or by reference
SPAs, the classification of those areas is nevertheless                              to the social security legislation of the Member
                                                                                State in which the ' work ' is done ?
subject to certain ornithological criteria determined by the
Directive . A Member State does not comply with those
 criteria and thus fails to fulfil its obligations where it fails       II . What is the relevant unit of time which should be
to classify the parts of a habitat of particular importance                    taken into account in defining the term
 for birds in danger of extinction within the meaning of                       'simultaneously' in Article 14c of Regulation ( EEC )
 Article 4 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Directive or where it fails to                   No 1408/71 , or by what criteria can this term be
 classify wetlands of special importance for the migratory                     defined ?
 species referred to in Article 4 ( 4 ) of the Directive.
                                                                         III . ( a ) 1 . Does Form E 101 , the issue of which is
 The protection system which results from the reserve                                     provided for, in particular, by Articles 11a and
 which it was agreed to set up is inadequate . A mere                                     12a ( 7) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 (2 ),
 agreement has only legal effects limited to the parties. No                              have binding force as regards the legal
 mechanism is provided to ensure compliance with its                                      consequences attested to therein:
 ---pagebreak--- 12 . 7 . 97               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 212/ 15
                 — with respect to the competent institution of               1.    In view of the fact that the tassa di concessione
                     the Member State in which the second                           governative ( administrative charge ) for entering
                     activity is pursued ?                                          companies in the Register of Companies is unlawful in
                 — with respect to the person employing a                           so far as it infringes Council Directive 69/335/EEC of
                     worker pursuing an activity in two                             17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising
                     Member States ?                                                of capital ( 1 ), is the application to claims for
                                                                                reimbursement of the three-year limitation period laid
             2 . If so, until when ?                                                down by Article 13 of Presidential Decree 641 /72
                                                                                compatible with Community law, or does it constitute
       ( b ) Does Form E 101 have retroactive effect in so far                      failure to apply Directive 69/335/EEC, having regard
             as the periods to which it relates have already                        to the fact that 'so long as a Directive has not been
             come to an end at the time when the form is
                                                                                properly transposed into national law, individuals are
             issued or produced ?                                                   unable to ascertain the full extent of their rights'?
(') Official Journal , English Special Edition 1971 II, p. 416 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p. 6 .                                     2 . In the absence of a specific provision in Presidential
                                                                                Decree 331 /93 governing the limitation period for the
                                                                                reimbursement of undue payments, do the combined
                                                                                provisions of Articles 2934 and 2946 of the Civil
                                                                                Code apply, having regard to the fact that the payment
                                                                                in question is not due ( Article 2033 of the Civil
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                             Code )?
Nederlanden of 7 May 1997, in the case of A. J. van der
           Kooy against the Staatssecretaris van Financien                    3 . Independently of Questions 1 and 2, do the time limits
                             ( Case C-181/97)                                       laid down by Article 13 of Presidential Decree 641 /72
                                 ( 97/C 212/25 )
                                                                                and Article 2946 of the Civil Code, respectively, start
                                                                                to run from the date of payment or, having regard to
                                                                                the principle referred to above that ' so long as a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              Directive has not been properly transposed into
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad                                    national law, individuals are unable to ascertain the
 der Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of                             full extent of their rights', from the date of publication
 7 May 1997, received at the Court Registry on 9 May                                 of Presidential Decree 331 /93 in the Gazzetta Ufficiale
 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of A. J. van der                         della Repubblica Italiana ?
 Kooy against the Staatssecretaris van Financien on the
 following question:                                                           (') Official Journal, English Special Edition 1969 II, p. 412.
 In the light of Articles 132 ( 1 ) and 227 of the EC Treaty,
 is Article 7 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the sixth Directive to be interpreted
 as meaning that the importation into the Netherlands of a
 ship which was previously in free circulation in the
 Netherlands Antilles is to be regarded as the entry into the
 Community of a product which does not fulfil the                             Action brought on 9 May 1997 by the Commission of the
 conditions of Articles 9 and 10 of the EC Treaty ?                            European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Germany
                                                                                Case C-184/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/27)
  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                       An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
  Brescia, Terza Sezione Civile, by order of that court of                     brought before the Court of Justice of the European
  16 November           1996 in the case of Società Palazzo                    Communities on 9 May 1997 by the Commission of the
  Piacentini Srl against Amministrazione Finanziaria dello                     European Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen,
                                        Stato
                                                                               Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                               ( Case C-l 82/97)                               in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                                   ( 97/C 212/26 )
                                                                               of the Commission's Legal Service, C 254 Wagner Centre,
                                                                               Kirchberg.
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
  European Communities by order of the Tribunale ( District
   Court ), Terza Sezione Civile (Third Civil Division),
   Brescia , of 16 November 1996 , received at the Court                        1 . declare that, by failing to establish programmes, in
   Registry on 12 May 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the                           accordance with Article 7 of Council Directive 76/464/
   case of Societa Piacentini Sri against Amministrazione                             EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain
   dello Stato ( State Finance Administration ) on the                                dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
   following questions :                                                              environment of the Community ( 1 ), with quality


title: Case T-301/11: Action brought on 16 June 2011 — Ben Ali v Council

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/29

         Action brought on 16 June 2011 — Ben Ali v Council
   (Case T-301/11)
   2011/C 226/57
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali (Tunis, Tunisia) (represented by: A. de Saint Remy, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               adopt a measure of organisation of procedure under Article 64 of the General Court’s Rules of Procedure, to ensure that the Commission disclose all documents relating to the adoption of the contested regulation;

               —

               annul Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 of 4 February 2011 [concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia] in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               failing annulment, apply derogations in respect of financial assets serving basic needs, but also some extraordinary expenses assessed case by case;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant an overall sum of EUR 50 000 in compensation for all forms of damage;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 7 500 for legal expenses in support of the application;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging lack of sufficient legal basis since first, the measure is not aimed at the maintenance or restoration of peace and security and infringes the individual rights of the applicant, second, the statement of reasons for the decision contains inaccuracies and errors and, third the measure is disproportionate and unjustified.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to an effective legal remedy.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons in the measure where, first, the freezing of funds is a penalty decided upon by a political body, second, no procedure for removal from the list is mentioned in the contested regulation, third, the applicant’s fundamental rights have been infringed at every stage of the procedure and, fourth, the statement of reasons for the measures is general, without foundation, vague and imprecise.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error in assessment of the facts since the applicant’s participation in an unlawful act has not been proved.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law concerning the right to property to the extent that the measures are an unjustified restriction on the applicant’s right to property.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law concerning the right to life since the effect of the freezing of assets should not to be to jeopardise the applicant’s means of support and right to life.


title: Case C-173/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 23 EC, 25 EC and 133 EC — EEC-Algeria Cooperation Agreement — Environmental protection tax on gas pipelines installed in the Sicilian Region — Charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-173/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 23 EC, 25 EC and 133 EC - EEC-Algeria Cooperation Agreement - Environmental protection tax on gas pipelines installed in the Sicilian Region - Charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty)
   (2007/C 183/05)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and J. Hottiaux, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, and A. Cingolo, avvocato dello Stato)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 23 EC, 25 EC, 26 EC and 133 EC and of Articles 4 and 9 of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria signed on 26 April 1976 and approved by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2210/78 of 26 September 1978 (OJ 1978 L 263, p. 1) — National law imposing an environmental protection tax (‘tributo ambientale’) on gas pipelines installed in the Sicilian Region
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by introducing an environmental tax on methane gas from Algeria, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 23 EC, 25 EC and 133 EC and under Article 9 of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, signed in Algiers on 26 April 1976, and approved on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2210/78 of 26 September 1978;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 16 May 2002 in Case C-321/99 P: Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias — Açúcares SA and Refinarias de Açúcar reunidas SA (RAR) v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — State aid — Common agricultural policy — Sugar — Aid granted in implementation of a general State aid scheme approved by the Commission — Contribution by a Member State to the financing of a project eligible for the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guidance Section — Aid for vocational training)

text:
C 169/2                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.7.2002
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      3.   Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the
                                                                                Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                            (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                            16 May 2002
in Case C-232/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                   ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 93/16/EEC — Transposition of Articles 8 and 18                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
— Access to additional training for migrant doctors who
wish to practise specialised medicine in the host Member
State on the basis of a diploma, certificate or other evidence                                     (Sixth Chamber)
of formal qualifications of specialist doctors which is not the
subject of automatic unconditional recognition under that
directive — Obligation for migrant doctors in Spain to sit                                           16 May 2002
the standard competition for admission to training in
specialised medicine — Requirement for affiliation to a                     in Case C-321/99 P: Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar
public social security body for the settlement of accounts                  Portugueses (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias — Açúcares
     relating to medical services with an insurance body)                   SA and Refinarias de Açúcar reunidas SA (RAR) v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
                          (2002/C 169/02)
                                                                            (Appeal — State aid — Common agricultural policy —
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                          Sugar — Aid granted in implementation of a general State
                                                                            aid scheme approved by the Commission — Contribution by
                                                                            a Member State to the financing of a project eligible for
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund,
                   in the European Court Reports)                                  Guidance Section — Aid for vocational training)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/03)
In Case C-232/99, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: I. Martı́nez del Peral and B. Mongin) v Kingdom of                                   (Language of the case: English)
Spain (Agent: N. Dı́az Abad): Application for a declaration
that, by failing to transpose correctly, within the prescribed
time-limit, Article 8 of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April
1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual              In Case C-321/99 P, Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar
recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence              Portugueses (ARAP), established in Lisbon (Portugal), Alcântara
of formal qualifications (OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1) and by failing               Refinarias — Açúcares SA, established in Santa Iria de Azóia
to transpose Article 18 of that same directive, the Kingdom of              (Portugal), and Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA (RAR),
Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of          established in Oporto (Portugal), represented by G. van der
the EC Treaty and of that directive, the Court (Fifth Chamber),             Wal: Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the Fourth Chamber,                  of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended
acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward                Composition) of 17 June 1999 in Case T-82/96 ARAP and
(Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate               Others v Commission [1999] ECR II-1889, seeking to have
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given            that judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings
a judgment on 16 May 2002, in which it:                                     being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                            J. Macdonald Flett) and Portuguese Republic (Agents: S. Brasil
                                                                            de Brito and L. Fernandes) and DAI — Sociedade de Desenvol-
1.    Declares that, by failing to transpose, within the prescribed         vimento Agro-Industrial SA, established in Monte da Barca
      time-limit, Article 8 of Council Directive 96/13/EEC of               (Portugal), represented by L. Sáragga Leal, D. Franco and
      5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the       R. Oliveira, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Col-
      mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other          neric, President of the Second Chamber, acting for the
      evidence of formal qualifications, the Kingdom of Spain has           President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet
      failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of that         (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; L.A. Geel-
      directive;                                                            hoed, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of
                                                                            Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 May
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                           2002, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 13.7.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 169/3
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                 1.    Annuls Commission Decision 2000/513/EC of 8 September
                                                                                1999 on aid granted by France to Stardust Marine;
2.    Dismisses the cross-appeal by the Commission;
                                                                            2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
3.    Orders Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses
      (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias — Açúcares SA and Refinarias            (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
      de Açúcar Reunidas SA (RAR) to pay the costs;
4.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay its own costs.
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                4 June 2002
                                                                            in Case C-483/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Republic of France (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                            Articles 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                            16 May 2002                                     Article 43 EC) and 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56
                                                                            EC) — Rights attaching to the ‘golden share’ held by the
                                                                                French Republic in Société Nationale Elf-Aquitaine)
in Case C-482/99: French Republic v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/05)
(State aid — Article 87(1) EC — Aid granted by the French
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Republic to Stardust Marine — Decision 2000/513/EC —
State resources — Imputability to the State — Prudent
           investor operating in a market economy)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                          (2002/C 169/04)
                    (Language of the case: French)                          In Case C-483/99, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agent: M. Patakia) v France (Agents: initially K. Rispal-
                                                                            Bellanger and S. Seam, and, subsequently, G. de Bergues and
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      S. Seam), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Dı́az
                   in the European Court Reports)                           Abad) and by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                            Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill, assisted by J. Crow, barrister, and
                                                                            D. Wyatt, QC) APPLICATION for a declaration that, by
                                                                            maintaining in force Article 2(1) and (3) of Decree No 93-
In Case C-482/99, French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger              1298 of 13 December 1993 vesting in the State a ‘golden
and F. Million) v Commission of the European Communities                    share’ in Société Nationale Elf-Aquitaine (JORF of 14 December
(Agents: G. Rozet and J. Flett): Application for the annulment              1993, p. 17354), according to which the following rights
of Commission Decision 2000/513/EC of 8 September 1999                      attach to the ‘golden share’ held by the French Republic in that
on aid granted by France to Stardust Marine (OJ 2000 L 206,                 company:
p. 6), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr                  (a)   any direct or indirect shareholding by a natural or legal
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La                        person, acting alone or in conjunction with others, which
Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and                               exceeds the ceiling of one tenth, one fifth or one third of
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advo-                        the capital of, or voting rights in, the company must
cate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                   first be approved by the Minister for Economic Affairs
given a judgment on 16 May 2002, in which it:                                     (Article 2(1) of the Decree);


22.1.2000             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 20/29
       Removal from the register of Case T-201/98 (1)                    the register of Case T-98/99, UPS Europe NV/SA v Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities.
                        (2000/C 20/64)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
                   (Language of the case: French)
By order of 8 November 1999, the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-201/98, Rumpstad ATM B.V. v Commission of the
European Communities.                                                           Removal from the register of Case T-107/99 (1)
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                                        (2000/C 20/67)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         By order of 8 November 1999, the President of the Second
       Removal from the register of Case T-76/99 (1)                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                        (2000/C 20/65)                                   Case T-107/99, Maria Soledad Garcia Retortillo v Council of
                                                                         the European Union.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
By order of 18 November 1999, the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-76/99: Jütro Konservenfabrik GmbH & Co KG v
Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-117/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/68)
       Removal from the register of Case T-98/99 (1)                                        (Language of the case: French)
                        (2000/C 20/66)                                   By order of 8 November 1999, the President of the Fifth
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register
                  (Language of the case: English)                        of Case T-117/99, Natalia Martinez Paramo and Others v
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities.
By order of 29 October 1999, the President of the Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                 (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 7 February 2002 in Case C-5/00: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 89/391/EEC — Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work — Articles 9(1)(a) and 10(3)(a) — Employer's duty to keep documents containing an assessment of the risks to safety and health at work)

text:
6.4.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 84/17
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in
                                                                           humans and to the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis in
                                                                           the United Kingdom, the Member States were entitled, under
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                  Article 8(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990
                                                                           concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-
                                                                           Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to
                          8 January 2002                                   the completion of the internal market, as amended by Council
                                                                           Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December 1992 laying down animal
                                                                           health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports
in Case C-507/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                  into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements
the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven): Denkavit                   laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to
Nederland BV v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer                         Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive
 en Visserij, Voedselvoorzieningsin- en verkoopbureau (1)                  90/425:
                                                                           —     to order the slaughter of young bovine animals originating from
(Agriculture — Combating bovine spongiform encephalo-                            the United Kingdom present in their territory and
pathy — Powers of the Member States — Decision to
slaughter and determination of the timing of slaughter                     —     consequently, to determine when their slaughter took place.
of United Kingdom calves during the bovine spongiform
             encephalopathy crisis in March 1996)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000
                           (2002/C 84/26)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                     (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                7 February 2002
In Case C-507/99: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC              in Case C-5/00: Commission of the European Communi-
by the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)                         ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Denkavit Nederland BV and Minister van                       (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij, Voedselvoorzieningsin-                 Directive 89/391/EEC — Measures to encourage improve-
en verkoopbureau, on the power of the Member States to                     ments in the safety and health of workers at work —
order the slaughter of United Kingdom calves and determine                 Articles 9(1)(a) and 10(3)(a) — Employer’s duty to keep
its timing during the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis              documents containing an assessment of the risks to safety
of March 1996 and on the interpretation of Article 8 of                                             and health at work)
Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning
veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Com-
                                                                                (2002/C 84/27)
munity trade in certain live animals and products with a view
to the completion of the internal market (OJ 1990 L 224,
p. 29), as amended by Council Directive 92/118/EEC of                                          (Language of the case: German)
17 December 1992 laying down animal health and public
health requirements governing trade in and imports into the                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Community of products not subject to the said requirements                                     in the European Court Reports)
laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A
(I) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to
Directive 90/425 (OJ 1993 L 62, p. 49), the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,                  In Case C-5/00, Commission of the European Communities
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and                   (Agent: M. Bogensberger) v Federal Republic of Germany
M. Wathelet, Judges, Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs, Registrar:             (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and B. Muttelsee-Schön): Application
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on                for a declaration that, by exempting, under Paragraph 6(1) of
8 January 2002, in which it has ruled:                                     the Gesetz über die Durchführung von Maßnahmen des
                                                                           Arbeitsschutzes zur Verbesserung der Sicherheit und des
                                                                           Gesundheitsschutzes der Beschäftigten bei der Arbeit (Arbeits-
The Community provisions applicable to the common agricultural             schutzgesetz) [Law on the implementation of protective
policy in the beef and veal sector are to be interpreted as meaning        measures to improve the safety and health of employees at
that, in response to information concerning a possible link between        work (Law on safety and health at work)] of 7 August 1996
 ---pagebreak--- C 84/18                     EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
(BGBl. 1996 I, p. 1246), employers of 10 or fewer workers                     Capitale (Judicial Board of the Brussels-Capital region)
from the duty to keep documents containing the results of a                   (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
risk assessment, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to                before that court between François De Coster and Collège des
fulfil its obligations under Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty              bourgmestre et échevins de Watermael-Boitsfort — on the
(now Articles 10 EC and 249 EC) and Articles 9(1)(a) and                      interpretation of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
10(3)(a) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on                   amendment, Article 49 EC) and Articles 60 and 66 of the EC
the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in                     Treaty (now Articles 50 and 55 EC) — the Court (Fifth
the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183                       Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
p. 1). the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr                    S. von Bahr, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur)
(Rapporteur), President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the                 and M. Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,                 General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 Nov-
M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges, Advocate                           ember 2001, in which it has ruled:
General: L.A. Geelhoed, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a
judgment on 7 February 2002, in which it:
                                                                              Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)
1.     Declares that, by failing to ensure that the obligation to be in       and Articles 60 and 66 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 50 and 55
       possession of an assessment in documentary form of the risks to        EC) must be interpreted as preventing the application of a tax on
       safety and health at work, as laid down by Council Directive           satellite dishes such as that introduced by Articles 1 to 3 of the tax
       89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures             regulation adopted on 24 June 1997 by the municipal council of
       to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers          Watermael-Boitsfort.
       at work, applies to employers of 10 or fewer workers in all
       circumstances, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
       fulfil its obligations under Articles 9(1)(a) and 10(3)(a) of that     (1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
       directive;
2.     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                7 February 2002
                              (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 29 November 2001                                 in Case C-28/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Oberster Gerichtshof): Liselotte Kauer v Pensions-
                                                                                versicherungsanstalt der Angestellten, (1)
in Case C-17/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Collège juridictionnel de la Région de Bruxelles-
Capitale): François De Coster v Collège des bourgmestre                       (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC)
               et échevins de Watermael-Boitsfort (1)                         No 1408/71 — Articles 94(1), (2) and (3) — Old-age
                                                                              insurance — Periods of child-rearing completed in another
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Defination of a                         Member State before the entry into force of Regulation
national court or tribunal — Freedom to provide services —                                                 No 1408/71)
Municipal tax on satellite dishes — Restriction on the
    freedom to receive television programmes by satellite)                                                (2002/C 84/29)
                               (2002/C 84/28)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                        (Language of the case: French)
                                                                              (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-28/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
In Case C-17/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                  by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
from the Collège juridictionnel de la Région de Bruxelles-                    in the proceedings pending before that court between Liselotte


title: Case C-376/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 18 October 2002 in the case of Stichting "Goed Wonen" against Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
11.1.2003               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 7/9
If the answer to the first question is in the negative:                  right in rem), being revoked on the sole ground that, as a result
                                                                         of a legislative amendment which had not yet taken effect at
                                                                         the time at which the abovementioned transaction was carried
2.    Is Article 45(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the
                                                                         out, that transaction is regarded with retroactive effect as an
      Council of 14 June 1971 (1) on the application of social
                                                                         exempt transaction establishing no right to deduct?
      security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
      persons and to members of their families moving within
      the Community, as amended and updated by Council
      Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (2), to
      be interpreted as precluding a rule of a Member State
      which requires inter alia, as a condition of entitlement to
      an early old-age pension in the event of unemployment,
      that the worker concerned must have drawn a cash
      benefit on account of his unemployment from the
      unemployment insurance scheme of that Member State                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State
      within a certain period prior to the qualifying date?              — IXe Kamer (Belgium) by judgment of that Court of
                                                                         18 October 2002 in the case of NV Firma Leon van Parys
                                                                          against Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau (BIRB)
( 1) OJ L 149 [1971], p. 2.
( 2) OJ L 28 [1997], p. 1.
                                                                                (Case C-377/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/16)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                  European Communities by judgment of the Raad van State
Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 18 October                      (Council of State) of 18 October 2002, received at the Court
2002 in the case of Stichting ‘Goed Wonen’ against                       Registry on 21 October 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
                 Staatssecretaris van Financiën                          case of NV Firma Leon van Parys against Belgisch Interventie-
                                                                         en Restitutiebureau (BIRB) (Belgian Intervention and Refund
                                                                         Bureau) on the following questions:
                           (Case C-376/02)
                                                                         1.    Do Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 (1) of 13 Febru-
                                                                               ary 1993 on the common organisation of the market in
                            (2003/C 7/15)                                      bananas, as amended by Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                               No 1637/98 ( 2) of 20 July 1998, Commission Regulation
                                                                               (EC) No 2362/98 (3) of 28 October 1998 laying down
                                                                               detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regu-
                                                                               lation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         the Community, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2806/
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der                          98 ( 4) of 23 December 1998 on the issuing of import
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 18 Octo-                     licences for bananas under the tariff quotas and for
ber 2002, received at the Court Registry on 21 October 2002,                   traditional ACP bananas for the first quarter of 1999 and
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Stichting ‘Goed                        on the submission of new applications, Commission
Wonen’ against Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the following                 Regulation (EC) No 102/99 ( 5) of 15 January 1999 on the
question:                                                                      issuing of import licences for bananas under the tariff
                                                                               quotas and for traditional ACP bananas for the first
                                                                               quarter of 1999 (second period) and Regulation (EC)
                                                                               No 608/1999 (6) of 19 March 1999 on the issuing of
Under circumstances such as those set out at paragraph 6.3.4.
                                                                               import licences for bananas under the tariff quotas and
above, do Articles 17 and 20 of the Sixth Directive or
                                                                               for traditional ACP bananas for the second quarter of
the European law principles of the protection of legitimate
                                                                               1999 and on the submission of new applications infringe
expectations and of legal certainty preclude — in a case not
                                                                               Article I, Article XIII:1 and Article XIII:2(d) of GATT
involving fraud or abuse or any question of a change in
                                                                               1994, taken separately or together, inasmuch as they:
planned use, as mentioned in paragraphs 50 and 51 of the
judgment of the Court of Justice in Schloßstraße — the
adjustment of VAT not deducted by a taxable person which he                    —     introduce to the benefit of twelve countries named
paid in respect of (immovable) property which is supplied to                         in the annex to Regulation No 1637/98 a joint
him and which he originally intended for letting (which is not                       quota of a maximum of 857 700 kg [sic] of bananas
subject to VAT), but subsequently used for a transaction                             (‘traditional ACP bananas’) and, moreover, in that
subject to VAT (in the present case, the grant of a usufructuary                     that quota does not accord with a distribution of


title: Case T-338/99: Action brought on 1 December 1999 by Lily Karoline Schuerer against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 79/30                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.3.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
By his action the applicant is essentially seeking a declaration        The applicant in the present case, a non-profit-making chari-
that his dismissal, which was pronounced in the course of               table organisation whose object is the social, working, political,
disciplinary proceedings, was unlawful.                                 sporting and cultural integration of all physically, psychologi-
                                                                        cally and sensorially handicapped persons, challenges the
                                                                        Commission’s refusal to initiate infringement proceedings
In support the applicant advances the following arguments in
                                                                        against the Kingdom of Spain with regard to the refusal to
relation in particular to the disciplinary proceedings:
                                                                        authorise the holding of a daily nationwide lottery draw under
                                                                        the auspices of the applicant organisation with the purpose of
— The proceedings were unlawful since the jurisdiction of
                                                                        subventing its activities.
    the ECB conferred under Article 36 of the ESCB/ECB
    Statute to lay down employment conditions does not
    encompass responsibility for laying down disciplinary               The refusal is allegedly based on the fact that in Spain the only
    proceedings.                                                        games to be authorised are those organised by the Organismo
                                                                        National de Loterı́as y Apuestas del Estado (National lotteries
— The applicant was not given an adequate hearing.                      and betting body) and the Organización Nacional de Ciegos
                                                                        Españoles (National Spanish organisation for the blind).
— The contested decision is based on a failure to comply with
    duties as to conduct which were never communicated to               In the applicant’s view, such a monopoly is contrary to
    the applicant as such and which furthermore are not                 Community law on the freedom of competition.
    binding on him.
— The defendant breached prohibitions on the collection of
    evidence and is relying on erroneous findings of fact.
— The applicant and his representative were placed at a
    disadvantage by reason of the fact that the proceedings
    were conducted in German.                                           Action brought on 1 December 1999 by Lily Karoline
                                                                           Schuerer against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-338/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 79/67)
Action brought on 25 November 1999, by the Organiza-                                       (Language of the case: German)
ción Impulsora del Discapacitado (OID) against the Com-
            mission of the European Communities                         An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                         (Case T-334/99)                                Communities on 1 December 1999 by Lily Karoline Schuerer,
                                                                        Munich, Germany, represented by Hermann J. Winzen, of the
                          (2000/C 79/66)                                Munich Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                        Chambers of Marco Steil, 12 Rue d’Anvers, Luxembourg.
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — declare that, by fixing the applicant’s pension weighting,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                             as from 3 October 1990, the day on which Berlin became
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                             the capital of Germany, according to the cost of living in
European Communities on 25 November 1999 by the Organ-
                                                                             Bonn rather than the Berlin cost index, the defendant has
ización Impulsora del Discapacitado, whose registered office is
                                                                             infringed the Treaty of the European Communities;
in Madrid, represented by Javier Gallego Sánchez, of the
Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the            — order the defendant to pay the costs.
Chambers of Michel Molitor, 55 Blvd. de la Pétrusse.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Pleas in law and main arguments
— Annul the decision of the European Commission’s decision              The applicant, who was formerly an official of the Commission,
    of 19 October 1999 and order the European Commission                relies principally on the pleas in law already advanced in
    to initiate infringement proceedings against the Kingdom            Case T-81/99 against the Commission.
    of Spain for infringing Community law, or, in the alterna-
    tive, declare the Spanish legislation in question to be
    contrary to the Treaty on the European Union.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 September 2000 in Case T-220/99: Joachim Behmer v the European Parliament (Officials — Appointment on promotion — Grade LA 3 — Consideration of the comparative merits)

text:
4.11.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 316/23
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, and pay the costs                                of 7 August 2000
      incurred by the defendant.
                                                                          in Case T-159/99: Bjarne Christiansen against the Court
                                                                                of Auditors (1)
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.                                                 (Officials — Request for retirement on grounds of invalidity
                                                                          — Absence of positive medical developments — Action
                                                                          manifestly unfounded in law — Action manifestly inadmis-
                                                                                sible)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/44)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                          In Case T-159/99: Bjarne Christiansen, temporary official of
                                                                          the Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing
                      of 20 September 2000                                at Nittel (Germany), represented by Alain Lorang, of the
                                                                          Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                          at his Chambers, 51 Rue Albert 1er against Court of Auditors
in Case T-220/99: Joachim Behmer v the European Parlia-                   of the European Communities (Agents: J.-M. Stenier, J. Inghel-
                               ment (1)                                   ram and P. Giusta) — application for annulment of the
                                                                          decision of the Court of Auditors refusing to retire him on
(Officials — Appointment on promotion — Grade LA 3 —                      ground of total permanent invalidity — the Court of First
           Consideration of the comparative merits)                       Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,
                                                                          J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
                                                                          on 7 August 2000 the operative part of which is as follows:
                          (2000/C 316/43)
                                                                          1.    The action is dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and
                                                                                as manifestly unfounded in law.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          2.    Each party is to bear its own costs.
In Case T-220/99: Joachim Behmer, official of the European
                                                                          (1) OJ 1999 C 281.
Parliament, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise
Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Gestion
Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck, against European Parliament
(Agents: H. von Hertzen and J. Sant’Anna) — application for
the annulment of the decision of 7 January 1999, first, in so
far as it appoints Ms. Dhyvert to the post of Depute Head of
Division of the German Translation Division at the European                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Parliament and, secondly, in so far as it rejects the applicant’s
candidature for the post — the Court of First Instance (Fourth                                       of 11 July 2000
Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos
and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,
for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 September 2000, in               in Case T-268/99: Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture
which it:                                                                 Biologique des Régions de France (FNAB) and Others v
                                                                                Council of the European Union (1)
1.    dismisses the application;                                          (Action for annulment — Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                          No 1804/1999 — Temporary derogation in favour of exist-
2.    orders each party to bear its own costs.                                          ing trade marks — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/45)
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-268/99: Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture Biolo-
                                                                          gique des Régions de France (FNAB), established in Paris,


title: Case C-142/03: Action brought on 31 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
21.6.2003              EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 146/25
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Pleas in law and principal arguments
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary laws,
      regulations and administrative provisions to implement           The period prescribed for implementing the directive ended
      Commission Directive 2000/38/EC (1) of 5 June 2000               on 31 July 2001.
      amending Chapter Va (Pharmacovigilance) of Council
      Directive 75/319/EEC on the approximation of pro-
      visions laid down by law, regulation or administrative           (1 ) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 75.
      action relating to medicinal products and/or to notify the       (2 ) OJ L 195, 29.7.1980, p. 35.
      Commission of those provisions, the Federal Republic of
      Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
      directive;
2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                                                                       Action brought on 31 March 2003 by the Commission of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on                                        (Case C-142/03)
5 December 2001.
                                                                                (2003/C 146/42)
( 1) OJ L 139 of 10.6.2000, p. 28.
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March
                                                                       2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Fernando Castillo de la Torre and Niels Bertil
                                                                       Rasmusen, members of its Legal Service, with an address for
Action brought on 28 March 2003 by the Commission                      service in Luxembourg.
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                              Sweden
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-141/03)
                                                                       —     declare that the Kingdom of Spain has infringed Article 91
                                                                             of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December
                         (2003/C 146/41)                                     1993 on the Community trade mark (1) by having
                                                                             failed to communicate to the Commission the list of
                                                                             Community trade mark courts;
An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before             —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by P. Hellström and J.M. Flett, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                       The Member States are under an obligation to designate,
                                                                       within three years following entry into force of the regulation,
—     Declare that by failing to adopt the laws and other              ‘Community trade mark courts’ and to communicate to the
      provisions necessary to implement Commission Directive           Commission their names and their territorial jurisdiction. That
      2000/52/EC ( 1) of 26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/           information should have been communicated by 15 March
      723/EEC (2) on the transparency of financial relations           1997 at the latest.
      between Member States and public undertakings or, in
      any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
      the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                       (1 ) OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1.
      under the directive, and
—     Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.


title: Case T-90/12: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Elegant Target Development and Others v Council

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/27

         Order of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Elegant Target Development and Others v Council
   (Case T-90/12) (1)

   2013/C 38/50
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


title: Case C-494/01: Action brought on 20 December 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
2.3.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 56/7
1.    Do Article 39 EC and Article 3 of Council Directive                Pleas in law and main arguments
      64/221/EEC (1) of 25 February 1964 preclude national
      legislation which makes it mandatory for authorities to
      expel nationals of other Member States who have been
      finally sentenced to a term of youth custody of at least           a)    The Commission considers that, as a result of a failure to
      two years, or to a term of imprisonment, for an inten-                   ensure that all establishments and undertakings carrying
      tional criminal offence under the Betäubungsmittelgesetz                 out the operations specified in Annex II A (disposal
      (Law on Narcotics) where the sentence has not been                       operations) and Annex II B (operations which may lead
      suspended?                                                               to recovery) of the Directive hold a permit, Ireland is
                                                                               breaching its obligations under Articles 9 and 10 of the
2.    Is Article 3 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 Febru-                Directive;
      ary 1964 to be interpreted as meaning that the making
      of a statement of facts and a positive development in the
      person concerned which occurred after the final decision
      of the authority must also be taken into account by the            b)    The transposition and application of Article 12 of
      national courts when they review the lawfulness of the                   Directive 75/442/EEC remains unsatisfactory for the
      expulsion of an EU national?                                             following reasons:
(1) OJ L 56, p. 850.
                                                                               First, under the terms of the Directive, the requirement of
                                                                               authorisation or registration should have been the subject
                                                                               of national measures from the expiry of the date of
                                                                               implementation of Directive 91/156/CEE. The Waste
                                                                               Management (Collection Permit) Regulations 2001 do
                                                                               not ensure that all waste collection will in fact be carried
                                                                               out under permit. Second, the Commission has not had
                                                                               confirmation that all waste collection in Ireland is now
Action brought on 20 December 2001 by the Commission                           carried out under permit.
        of the European Communities against Ireland
                         (Case C-494/01)
                                                                         c)    The Commission considers that a seriously incomplete
                                                                               application of the permit requirements of Article 9
                           (2002/C 56/14)                                      represents evidence that Ireland has not taken the appro-
                                                                               priate measures to establish an integrated and adequate
                                                                               network of disposal installations as required under
                                                                               Article 5 of the Directive.
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 20 December 2001
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Mr Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an address               d)    By allowing significant amount of waste disposal and
for service in Luxembourg.                                                     recovery in Ireland to take place for a protracted period
                                                                               outside the permit framework of Article 9 of the Directive,
                                                                               Ireland cannot be considered to have taken all the
The Applicant requests that the Court should                                   necessary measures for the purposes of Article 4, (regu-
                                                                               lation of waste disposal and recovery operations so as to
                                                                               avoid endangering human health and without using
—     declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary
                                                                               processes or methods which could harm the environ-
      to ensure a correct implementation of the provisions of
                                                                               ment), because without permits disposal and recovery
      Articles 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 of Council Directive
                                                                               methods are not properly conditioned and controlled.
      75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1) as amended by
      Council Directive 91/156/EEC (2), Ireland has failed to
      comply with its obligations under those Articles of the
      said Directive;
                                                                         e)    The Commission considers that Ireland has failed to
                                                                               respect Article 8 of the Directive, in as much as it has
—     declare that, by failing to completely and satisfactorily                failed to ensure that those who hold waste as a result of
      respond to a request for information dated 20 September                  non-permitted waste operations have the waste at the
      1999 in relation to a waste operation at Fermoy, County                  sites concerned handled by a private or public waste
      Cork, Ireland has failed to fulfil the obligations which it              collector or by an undertaking which carries out the
      has pursuant to Article 10 of the EC Treaty;                             operations listed in Annex II A or B, or, alternatively, it
                                                                               has failed to ensure that the holders recover or dispose of
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                          the waste themselves in accordance with the Directive.
 ---pagebreak--- C 56/8                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2.3.2002
f)    The Commission also considers that, by reason of its              of the dried fodder. According to the Commission, it must also
      failure to respect the requirements of Article 9 and 10 of        be considered that there is a supply for consideration within
      the Directive regarding permits, Ireland is not respecting        the meaning of the Sixth Directive, because the recipient of aid
      Article 13 of the Directive, which requires establishments        is a fodder-processing undertaking which sells fodder to third
      or undertakings carrying waste operations to be subject           parties. In Finland, however, value added tax is not charged on
      to periodic inspection by the authorities, or Article 14 of       such aid.
      the Directive, which requires such establishments or
      undertakings to keep records and to make this infor-
      mation available on request by the competent authorities.         (1) On the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                            to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                            basis of assessment, (OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1).
(1) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ           (2) (OJ L 63 of 21.03.1995, p. 1).
    L 194, 25.07.1975, p. 39).
(2) OJ L 078, 26.03.1991, p. 32.
                                                                        Appeal brought on 24 December 2001 (fax: 20.12.2001)
                                                                        by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Action brought on 21 December 2001 by the Commission                    (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment delivered
of the European Communities against the Republic of                     on 3 October 2001 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
                              Finland                                   of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                        T-140/00 between Zapf Creation AG and the Office for
                                                                        Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                         (Case C-495/01)                                                              Designs)
                          (2002/C 56/15)                                                         (Case C-498/01 P)
                                                                                (2002/C 56/16)
An action against the Republic of Finland was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
21 December 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by E. Traversa and I. Koskinen, with           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 October 2001
an address for service in Luxembourg.                                   by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in Case T-140/00 between Zapf
                                                                        Creation AG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
The Commission claims that the Court should:                            Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 December
                                                                        2001 (fax: 20.12.2001) by the Office for Harmonisation in
1.    Declare that the Republic of Finland is in breach of              the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), represented by
      Article 11 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of           Detlev Schennen, Head of Unit in the Legal Department, and
      17 May 1977 on value added tax (1) by failing to charge           Carina Røhl Søberg, administrator in the Legal Department of
      value added tax on aid paid under Council Regulation              the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
      (EC) No 603/95 of 21 February 1995 on the common                  Marks and Designs).
      organisation of the market in dried fodder (2);
2.    Order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.                   The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        (1) dismiss the application of Zapf Creation AG;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        (2) order Zapf Creation AG (as applicant in the proceedings
                                                                              before the Court of First Instance) to pay the costs of the
                                                                              proceedings before the Court of First Instance;
According to Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive, the
taxable amount is the consideration payable for the supply,
which is to include ‘subsidies directly linked to the price’ of the     (3) set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
supply. Since the Community aid granted for the processing                    3 October 2001 in Case T-140/00 ‘New Born Baby’ (1);
and sale of dried fodder is paid on the basis of the amount of
dried fodder sold and treated, the aid must, in the Commission’s        (4) order Zapf Creation AG to pay the costs of the proceed-
opinion, be considered to have a direct influence on the price                ings before the Court of Justice.