title: Case C-213/01 P: Appeal brought on 23 May 2001 by T. Port GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment delivered on 20 March 2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-52/99 between T. Port GmbH & Co. KG and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 245/2                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                              1.9.2001
Directive 94/58/EC on the minimum level of training of                       of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
seafarers (OJ 1998 L 172, p. 1), the Grand Duchy of                          Article 49 EC), Articles 86 and 90(1) of the EC Treaty (now
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under                        Articles 82 EC and 86(1) EC) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
Article 249 EC and Article 2 of that directive — the Court                   composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,
(Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of                       D.A.O. Edward and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges;
the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues                       D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
(Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;                       has made an order on 19 June 2001, in which it rules:
R. Grass, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July
2001, in which it:                                                           Public employment procurement offices are subject to the prohibition
                                                                             in Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC), provided that
1.    Declares that, by failing to bring into force within the prescribed    the application of that provision does not frustrate the specific
      period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions,            function entrusted to them. A Member State which prohibits any
      including any penalties, necessary to comply with Council              activity of mediation and intervention between the seeking and
      Directive 98/35/EC of 25 May 1998 amending Directive                   offering of employment which is not carried on by those offices
      94/58/EC on the minimum level of training of seafarers, the            infringes Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(1) EC) if it
      Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations         creates a situation in which public employment procurement offices
      under Article 2 of that directive;                                     are necessarily put in a position where they contravene the provisions
                                                                             of Article 86 of the Treaty. That is the case in particular where the
2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                 following conditions are met:
(1) OJ C 273 of 23.9.2000.                                                   —      the public employment procurement offices are manifestly
                                                                                unable to satisfy demand on the labour market for the kind of
                                                                                activities concerned;
                                                                             —      the actual carrying on of employment procurement activities by
                                                                                private agencies is rendered impossible by the maintenance in
                                                                                force of provisions of law which prohibit those activities on pain
                                                                                of criminal and administrative penalties;
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                             —      the procurement activities in question are to extend to the
                         (Fourth Chamber)                                           nationals or the territory of other Member States.
                          of 19 June 2001
                                                                             (1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
in Joined Cases C-9/01 to C-12/01 (references for a
preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent):
Stéphane Monnier v Govan Sports NV, Edwin van Anke-
ren v Govan Sports NV, Govan Sports NV v Pascal Jacobs
         and Govan Sports NV v Dannie D’Hondt (1)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Activity of
     procuring employment for professional sportsmen)                        Appeal brought on 23 May 2001 by T. Port GmbH &
                                                                             Co. KG against the judgment delivered on 20 March 2001
                                                                             by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                          (2001/C 245/03)                                    European Communities in Case T-52/99 between T. Port
                                                                             GmbH & Co. KG and the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Case C-213/01 P)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                (2001/C 245/04)
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-9/01 to C-12/01: references to the Court                   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 20 March 2001
under Article 234 EC from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Court                  by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
of Appeal, Ghent), Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in the                  European Communities in Case T-52/99 between T. Port
proceedings pending before that court between Stéphane                       GmbH & Co. KG and the Commission of the European
Monnier and Govan Sports NV, Edwin van Ankeren and                           Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
Govan Sports NV, Govan Sports NV and Pascal Jacobs, and                      European Communities on 23 May 2001 by T. Port GmbH &
Govan Sports NV and Dannie D’Hondt — on the interpretation                   Co. KG, represented by Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne.
 ---pagebreak--- 1.9.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 245/3
The appellant claims that the Court should:                             1.   Is the application of a provision of a bilateral agreement
                                                                             concluded between a Member State and a non-member
1.    set aside the contested judgment in so far as the Court                country, under which a simpe/qualified geographical
      of First Instance dismissed the plea in law, that the                  indication which in the country of origin is the name
      Commission wrongly failed to take into account the                     neither of a region nor a place nor a country is accorded
      quantity judicially determined by the Finanzgericht Ham-               the absolute protection, regardless of any misleading, of
      burg in calculating the reference quantity for the years               a qualified geographical indication within the meaning of
      1997 to 1999 (paragraph 88); and                                       Regulation No 2081/92 (1), compatible with Article 28 EC
                                                                             and/or Regulation No 2081/92, if on application of that
2.    order the Commission to pay the costs                                  provision the import of a product which is lawfully
                                                                             put on the market in another Member State may be
                                                                             prevented?
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         2.   Does this apply also where the geographical indication
                                                                             which in the country of origin is the name neither of a
The Court of First Instance fails to take proper account of the              region nor a place nor a country is not understood in the
scope of Article 5(2) and (3) of Regulation No 2362/98 (1). In               country of origin as a geographical designation for a
accordance with that provision, any customs duty paid in                     specific product, and also not as a simple or indirect
respect of the quantity imported constitutes sufficient evidence             geographical indication?
of the reference quantity to which the operator is entitled. The
relevant duty is that which was due from the importer on the            3.   Do the answers to Questions 1 and 2 apply also where
day of importation. The duty applicable to the appellant on                  the bilateral agreement is an agreement which the
the day of importation was the quota duty, which the Court of                Member State concluded before its accession to the
First Instance fails to take into account. The Finanzgericht                 European Union and continued after its accession to the
Hamburg had made an interim order to the effect that the                     European Union with a successor State to the original
customs must accept the importation of the ‘quantity judicially              other State party to the agreement by means of a
determined’ without a certificate, provided the quota duty was               declaration of the Federal Government?
paid. The competent Hauptzollamt had decided that the duty
due from the appellant was the quota duty. The appellant                4.   Does the second paragraph of Article 307 EC oblige the
actually paid it. In relation to the question of actual payment              Member State to interpret such a bilateral agreement,
of the customs duty by the appellant in its capacity as importer,            concluded between that Member State and a non-member
the fact that the appeal court annulled the interim order of the             country before the Member State’s accession to the
Finanzgericht Hamburg, and that the Hauptzollamt sub-                        EU, in conformity with Community law as stated in
sequently amended the duty notice and determined the normal                  Article 28 EC and/or Regulation No 2081/92, so that
duty, is irrelevant. In relation to the quantity judicially                  the protection laid down therein for a simple/indirect
determined, it is obvious from the wording of Article 5(3)(b)                geographical indication which in the country of origin is
that the duty determined by the customs authorities on the                   the name neither of a region nor a place nor a country
day of importation and paid for the quantity imported                        comprises merely protection against misleading and
constitutes sufficient evidence of the reference quantity to                 not the absolute protection of a qualified geographical
which the appellant was entitled.                                            indication within the meaning of Regulation
                                                                             No 2081/92?
(1) OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handels-                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
gericht Wien by order of that court of 26 February                      hof by order of 24 April 2001 in the case of British
2001 in the case of Budejovicky Budvar, n.p. v Rudolf                   American Tobacco Manufacturing B.V. v Hauptzollamt
                       Ammersin GmbH                                                                 Krefeld
                         (Case C-216/01)                                                        (Case C-222/01)
                         (2001/C 245/05)                                                        (2001/C 245/06)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Handelsgericht                  European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
Wien (Commercial Court, Vienna) of 26 February 2001, which              (Federal Finance Court) of 24 April 2001, received at the Court
was received at the Court Registry on 25 May 2001, for a                Registry on 5 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
preliminary ruling in the case of Budejovicky Budvar, n.p. v            case of British American Tobacco Manufacturing B.V. v
Rudolf Ammersin GmbH on the following questions:                        Hauptzollamt Krefeld on the following questions:


title: Case T-166/10: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2012 — Samskip Multimodal Container Logistics v Commission (Action for annulment — Decision awarding Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system — Marco Polo II programme — Termination of the grant agreement and definitive abandonment of the project — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2012 — Samskip Multimodal Container Logistics v Commission
   (Case T-166/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Decision awarding Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system - Marco Polo II programme - Termination of the grant agreement and definitive abandonment of the project - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 165/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Samskip Multimodal Container Logistics BV (’s-Gravenzande, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Platteau, Y. Maasdam and P. Broers, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Simonsson, Agent, assisted by J. Grayston and P. Gjørtler, lawyers)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 580 of 27 January 2010 on the financial assistance for proposals for actions submitted in the 2009 selection procedure in the European Union programme ‘improving the environmental performance of the freight transport system’ (the Marco Polo II programme), in so far as it selects Proposal TREN/B4/SUB/01-2009 MP-II/6 concerning the G2G@2XL project for funding in the amount of EUR 2 190 539.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear four fifths of the costs of Samskip Multimodal Container Logistics BV and four fifths of its own costs;

               3.

               Orders Samskip Multimodal Container Logistics to bear one fifth of the Commission’s costs and one fifth of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Case C-153/15 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Restrictive measures taken against Iran — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the appellant’s name — Admissibility — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Point from which time starts to run — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/3

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-153/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Restrictive measures taken against Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the appellant’s name - Admissibility - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Point from which time starts to run - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 078/04)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, advokat, G. Pandey and D. Rovetta, avocats, and M. Gambardella, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.


C 163/36              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10.6.2000
Removal from the register of Case T-518/97 to T-564/97 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case T-186/99 (1)
                        (2000/C 163/73)                                                           (2000/C 163/76)
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Third
Chamber, of the Court of First Instance of the European                  By order of 21 March 2000, the President of the Second
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-518/97 to T-564/97: Fernando Eugénio de Abreu and                 Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of                 Case T-186/99: Saehan Media Ireland Limited v Commission
the European Communities.                                                of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.                                               (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
Removal from the register of Case T-565/97 to T-595/97 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-356/99 (1)
                        (2000/C 163/74)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/77)
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)
By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Third                                    (Language of the case: English)
Chamber, of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                 By order of 28 March 2000, the President of the First Chamber
Case T-565/97 to T-595/97: João Luı́s de Sousa de Abreu and             of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of                 has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-356/99:
the European Communities.                                                Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale Elder v Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
Removal from the register of Case T-615/97 to T-618/97 (1)
                        (2000/C 163/75)                                          Removal from the register of Case T-1/00 (1)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                                 (2000/C 163/78)
By order of 16 December 1999, the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                                      (Language of the case: German)
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-615/97 to T-618/97: Albery Frères and Others v                    By order of 31 March 2000, the President of the First Chamber
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                      of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
European Communities.                                                    has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-1/00:
                                                                         Gustav Hölzl and Others v Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.


title: Case T-210/99: Action brought on 20 September 1999 by J.H. Gankema, trading as Bovanda Oil, against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
8.1.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 6/23
Action brought on 20 September 1999 by J.H. Gankema,                    Action brought on 22 September 1999 by Borrekuil B.V.
trading as Bovanda Oil, against the Commission of the                     against the Commission of the European Communities
                    European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-211/99)
                         (Case T-210/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 6/42)
                          (2000/C 6/41)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 22 September 1999 by Borrekuil
                                                                        B.V., of Beek (Netherlands), represented by P.W.A.M. van Roy,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               of the Beek Bar.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 September 1999 by J.H. Ganke-
ma, trading as Bovanda Oil, of Veendam (Netherlands),                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
represented by E. Maas, of the Groningen Bar.
                                                                        — annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
                                                                            of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
The applicant claims that the Court should annul the Com-                   Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
mission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1) of 20 July 1999                 Germany, and order that no demand for repayment should
concerning State aid granted by the Netherlands to 633 service              be made;
stations in the region bordering Germany, and declare that the
subsidy granted to Bovanda Oil is not contrary to any                   — order the Commission to pay the costs.
European legislation.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
                                                                        T-210/99.
The contested decision provides inter alia that the Netherlands
should reclaim the subsidies granted to 450 service stations in         (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
the vicinity of the German border, including that of the
applicant, by way of compensation for an increase in excise
duty introduced in the Netherlands with effect from 1 July
1997. As regards certain of those service stations, the Com-
mission took the view that the Netherlands had not provided
any, or any sufficient, information concerning the relationships
and links between owners and suppliers showing that the aid
could have no appreciable effect on trade and competition
between Member States.                                                  Action brought on 29 September 1999 by Autoservice
                                                                        Fermans Exclusive B.V. against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
The applicant operates, for his own account and at his own
risk, a service station belonging to him. He states that he has                                 (Case T-215/99)
no link with any particular fuel supplier, and that the subsidy
granted to him therefore likewise falls within the de minimis
rule (2).                                                                                (2000/C 6/43)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
(2) Commission notice, OJ 1996 C 68, p. 9.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 29 September 1999 by Autoservice
                                                                        Fermans Exclusive B.V., of Amstenrade (Netherlands), rep-
                                                                        resented by H.F.A Bronneberg, of the Geelen Bar.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam by judgment of 14 June 1995 in the case of A. H. M. van den Boogaard v. P. M. Laumen (Case C-220/95)

text:
No C 208/16             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                         12 . 8 . 95
— grant the forms of order sought at first instance .                 Reference         for    a       preliminary   ruling   from      the
                                                                      Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam by judgment of
                                                                      14 June 1995 in the case of A. H. M. van den Boogaard v.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                 P. M. Laumen
                                                                                ( Case C-220/95 )
— Article 85 of the Treaty                                                                          ( 95 /C 208/32 )
   The Court of First Instance affirmed that the agreements           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    in which the appellant participated were intended to              European Communities by a judgment of the
    restrict competition and were likely to impede trade              Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam ( District Court,
    between the Member States merely by establishing prices           Amsterdam ) of 14 June 1995 , which was received at the
   and quotas .                                                       Court Registry on 21 June 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                      the case of A. H. M. van den Boogaard v. P. M. Laumen on
   The Court of First Instance did not take account either of         the following question:
    the Italian version of Article 85 according to which an
                                                                      Must the decision of the English j udge ( 1 ), which in any case
    agreement must have not only as its 'object' but also as
    its 'effect' the prevention of competition, nor of the            relates in part to a maintenance obligation, be regarded as a
    Court's interpretation of that article in the other               decision which relates ( in part ) to rights in property arising
    language versions .
                                                                      out of a matrimonial relationship within the meaning of
                                                                      indent 1 of the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Brussels
                                                                      Convention even though :
    It is in any event arbitrary, in the appellant's view, to
    hold that all agreements fixing prices and setting quotas         ( a ) the income requirement is capitalized ;
    are ipso facto contrary to Article 85 ( 1 ). In fact, whilst it
    is true that the agreements which directly or indirectly          ( b ) an order was made to transfer the house and the De
    fix prices and which limit outlets have as their object the               Heem painting which, according to the decision, belong
    prevention , restriction or distortion of competition, that               to the husband;
    does not suffice for a finding that they are contrary to
                                                                      ( c ) in his decree , the English judge himself expressly stated
    Article 85 . It is further necessary that they are capable of
                                                                              that he did not regard the marriage settlement as
    affecting trade between Member States . That effect on                    binding;
    trade must also be appreciable . In the appellant's view,
    the contested agreement was not in a position to alter to         ( d ) it cannot be made out from that decree to what extent
    a significant extent trade between Italy and France.                      the factor mentioned in ( c ) influenced the English
                                                                              judge's decision ?
— The wire regime
                                                                      ( ! ) The parties who both have Netherlands nationality, were
                                                                            married in the Netherlands under the regime of common
    In the appellant's view the 'Court of First Instance                    property . They later concluded a marriage settlement whereby
    omitted to examine an important question of law,                        the marriage regime was amended to universal separation of
    namely whether an agreement between producers of a                      property . This severed and divided the community of property.
    finished product (welded steel mesh ) may be deemed                     The parties later settled in London .
    unlawful when the agreement is the necessary
    consequence of mandatory Community rules imposing
    quotas and prices for the semi-finished product
    ( wire ).
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du
                                                                      Travail de Tournai by judgment of 6 June 1995 in the case
— Article 15 of Regulation No 17                                      of Institut National d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs
                                                                      Independants (INASTI ) v. Claude Hervein and Herviller
                                                                                SA
    The appellant considers that the Court of First Instance
    did not correctly interpret Article 15 of Regulation                                          ( Case C-221/95 )
    No 17 which gives the Community the power to impose                                              ( 95/C 208/33 )
    fines, that is a discretionary and not a mandatory
    power .                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal du
    All the arguments relied on by the appellant in support of        Travail de Tournai ( Labour Tribunal , Tournai ) of 6 June
    the legality of the agreement must be considered in order          1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on 26 June
    to assess at least whether a fine was justified and whether        1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Institut
    the fine actually imposed satisfied equitable criteria .           National d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs
    However, the Court of First Instance examined only                Independants v. Claude Hervein and Herviller SA on the
     some of those arguments whilst minimizing others of               following question:
    greater importance .
                                                                       does self-employment ( activite non salariee ) referred to in
                                                                       particular in Article 14a ( 2 ) of CounciURegulation ( EEC )
                                                                       No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 (') refer in particular to the


title: Case C-342/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 July 2015 — Leopoldine Gertraud Piringer

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 July 2015 — Leopoldine Gertraud Piringer
   (Case C-342/15)
   (2015/C 354/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant and appellant: Leopoldine Gertraud Piringer

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 1(1), second sentence, of Council Directive 77/249/EEC (1) of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services to be interpreted as enabling a Member State to exclude certification of the authenticity of signatures on instruments which are necessary for the creation or transfer of rights to property from the freedom to provide services by lawyers and to reserve the provision of this service to public notaries?

               2.

               Is Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as not precluding a national provision of the State of registry (Austria) under which certification of the authenticity of signatures on instruments which are necessary for the creation or transfer of rights to property is reserved to public notaries, with the effect that a declaration of the authenticity of a signature by a lawyer established in the Czech Republic made in his State of establishment is not recognised in the State of registry, despite this declaration being accorded the legal effect of an official certification under Czech law,
               in particular because,

                           a.

                           the question of the recognition of a declaration of the authenticity of a signature on a request for entry in the land register of the State of registry made in the Czech Republic by a lawyer established there relates to the provision of a service by a lawyer the content of which is not possible for lawyers established in the State of registry, and the refusal to recognise it is therefore not subject to the prohibition of restrictions on recognition

                     or

                           b.

                           such a reservation is justified to ensure the legality and legal certainty of acts (instruments relating to legal transactions) and as a consequence is required for reasons of public interest and is also necessary to achieve this objective in the State of registry?

      (1)  Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services (OJ 1977 L 78, p. 17).


title: Action brought on 29 August 1995 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-165/95)

text:
No C 268/28           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14 . 10 . 95
— award the sum of Bfrs 75 000, to be increased or                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
     decreased as appropriate during the course of the
     proceedings, as compensation for the non-material              — order the Commission to pay the difference between his
     damage suffered by the applicant,                                   salary as an official and his invalidity pension from
                                                                         1 August 1991 until the date when he reaches
— order the Council to pay all of the costs .                            pensionable age under the Staff Regulations of officials
                                                                         ( 31 January 2006 ), by way of compensation for the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      material damage suffered by the applicant, that
                                                                         difference amounting, on a provisional assessment, to
                                                                         Bfrs 15 000 000 + Bfrs 12 500 000, and order the
The applicant seeks the annulment of his staff report for the            Commission to calculate the first of those sums,
period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1993 .
                                                                    — order the Commission to pay ECU 1 000 000 by way of
The applicant states in that regard that at the time when, on            compenstion for the non-material damage suffered by
8 December 1994, he signed the draft staff report drawn up               the applicant,
by the first assessor, endorsing thereon the comment 'I do
not agree with the assessments made by the first assessor and      — order the Commission to pay interest at the rate of 10 %
wish to have a meeting with the-isecond assessor for the                 per annum on the capital sum of Bfrs 25 794 194
purposes of revising the report', the second assessor had                received by the applicant pursuant to Article 73 of the
already signed the report in question 10 days previously.                Staff Regulations, such interest, provisionally assessed in
                                                                         the sum of Bfrs 15 000 000, to be calculated from
Since the normal procedure had not been followed, the                    1 January 1990, alternatively from 10 June 1991 at the
defendant drew up a fresh report covering the same period.               latest, until payment in full of that capital sum,
That new report refers to a discussion on 17 May 1 995 and
purports to have been signed on the same date by the first         — in so far as may be necessary, annul the decision of the
and second assessors .
                                                                         Commission of 22 September 1994 refusing the
                                                                         applicant's request of 15 May 1994 ,
The applicant pleads, first, an infringement of Article 43 of
the Staff Regulations and of the guide to staff reports, in        — order the Commission to pay all of the costs .
that, despite the fact that those two instruments provide for
a periodical report to be drawn up at least once every two
years, on 1 July in every odd year, in the present case the         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
initial report was not communicated to the applicant until
November 1994 , that is to say, over 15 months late .               The applicant states that he worked in the Berlaymont
                                                                    building in Brussels from the time when it was constructed,
He further pleads that the procedure followed was irregular,        in 1967, until 1987, when he was transferred to another
in that it is apparent from an examination of the initial           building. As a result of his exposure to asbestos over a
report that it was signed by the first and second assessors        period of nearly twenty years, he developed an illness . On
before being signed by the applicant, despite the fact that the    26 November 1990 the applicant submitted a request for the
applicable rules provide for the report to be signed by the         recognition of his illness as an occupational disease . On
second assessor after the official concerned has been given         16 July 1991 the appointing authority decided to retire him
an opportunity of making comments or remarks thereon .              from 1 August 1991 and to grant him an invalidity pension
                                                                    determined on the basis of the third paragraph of Article 78
                                                                    of the Staff Regulations of officials . It was not until 15 April
                                                                    1994, after a lengthy and complex procedure, that the
                                                                    appointing authority finally acknowledged the occupational
                                                                   nature of the disease afflicting the applicant.
Action brought on 29 August 1995 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni             The applicant considers that the Commission's conduct in
  against the Commission of the European Communities                relation to him was unlawful, since it required him to work
                                                                    in an environment contaminated by asbestos,
                        Case T-165 /95 )                            notwithstanding that it knew of, or could not in any event
                         ( 95/C 268/59 )                            have been unaware of, the dangerous nature of that
                                                                    substance, particularly as regards persons performing tasks
                                                                    of an administrative nature in such an environment .
               (Language of tbe case: French)
                                                                    As a result of that misconduct on the part of the
An action against the Commission of the European                    Commission, the applicant has suffered material damage,
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   inasmuch as , first, he has received, since 1 August 1991 , an
Instance of the European Communities on 29 August 1995              invalidity pension in a sum lower than the remuneration
by Arnaldo Lucaccioni , residing in Paris, represented by           which he would have received if he had not been retired on
Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Olivier Eben, of the           the ground of invalidity and, second, he has been forced to
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at          sell his immovable property quickly, and thus at a reduced
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener.,              price, in order to make early repayment of the sums
 ---pagebreak--- 14 . 10 . 95          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 268/29
borrowed by him in relation thereto, since his invalidity           The applicant claims that the Court should :
pension is insufficient to enable him to continue to meet his
monthly outgoings. The applicant is also suffering serious          — annul the decision of the selection board for internal
non-material damage as a result of the illness afflicting him            competition COM/B/9/93 awarding the applicant a
and as a result of having been retired on the ground of                  lower mark for her oral test than the minimum required
invalidity.                                                              and excluding her from the list of successful
                                                                         candidates,
Lastly, the applicant maintains that there is a causal link
between the Commission's wrongful conduct and the                   — order the defendant to pay the costs .
alleged material and non-material damage, since, if he had
not been exposed, over a period of nearly twenty years, to an
environment contaminated by asbestos, he would not have             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
contracted the illness and could have pursued his career in
the normal way until retirement age, continuing to receive          The applicant pleads, first, a breach of the principles of
the whole of his remuneration until then .                          equality of treatment and non-discrimination . She observes
                                                                    in that regard that, by reason of the total lack of knowledge
The applicant further asserts that, in the course of the            of the Greek language on the part of the members of the
procedures in respect of invalidity and the recognition of the      selection board, she was obliged to undergo the oral test
illness as an occupational disease, the Commission was at           through the intermediary of an interpreter, which meant
fault in a number of respects, thereby entitling him to             that the conditions in which the oral test took place in her
compensation . He considers that the various instances of           case, and thus the methods used for marking that test, were
irregularity and illegality by which those procedures were          not the same as those for the other candidates . She also
vitiated prevented him, with effect from January 1990 or, at        maintains that, in consequence of the adoption of that
the very latest, June 1991 , from receiving the benefits due to     procedure , the members of the selection board were unable
him under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations .                     personally to assess two of the appraisal factors, namely the
                                                                    clarity and 'synthesis' of the answers given in her native
                                                                    tongue to the questions put to her in the course of the oral
                                                                    test .
Action brought on 30 August 1995 by Mary                            The applicant also maintains that the marks awarded to her
Karagiozopoulou against the Commission of the European              for the oral test are so different from the assessments made
                          Communities
                                                                    in relation to her in her most recent staff report and in the
                       ( Case T-166/95 )                            proposal for her promotion to grade C2 , and from the
                         ( 95/C 268/60                              marks awarded for the drafting test, that they must of
                                                                    necessity be vitiated by a manifest error of assessment .
               (Language of the case: Frencb)
                                                                    Lastly, the applicant considers that the decision whereby,
An action against the Commission of the European                    despite the defendant's undertaking to provide for 60 posts
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   with a view to upgrading category C posts to category B
Instance of the European Communities on 30 August 1995              posts, the number of candidates admitted to the oral tests
by Mary Karagiozopoulou, residing in Brussels, represented          was limited to 120 constitutes evidence not only of a breach
by Ariane Tornel and Thierry Demaseure, of the Brussels             of the obligation laid down in the fifth paragraph of
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices       Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations but also of an
of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl , 1 Rue Glesener.                          intention to limit in advance the number of successful
                                                                    candidates .


C 227/32                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11.8.2001
of the applicant, who lives with his partner and was therefore            the fact that the Community market had failed to strengthen
unable to provide a lease or title deeds or telephone, gas or             or even maintain, its position on the market, and the fact that
electricity bills in his own name. The applicant further claims           Community steel producers had to bear negative effects, in the
infringement of the principle of proper administration, good              form of additional costs brought by the measures in particular,
management and the duty to have regard to the welfare of                  which cumulated while those measures were in force.
officials.
                                                                          In this respect the applicant companies claim that a manifest
                                                                          error of assessment has occurred. They dwell particularly on
                                                                          the fact that the Commission could not call into question the
                                                                          position adopted by the Council in 1993/1994 on Community
                                                                          interest.
Action brought on 16 June 2001 by Euroalliages, Péchiney                  In support of their claims, they also submit that the following
Electrométallurgie, Vargon Alloys A.B. and Ferroatlantica                 provisions of the basic regulation on anti-dumping have been
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      infringed:
                          (Case T-132/01)                                 —     Article 11(2) and Article 2 in so far as those provisions
                                                                                prohibit the taking into account of a period prior to the
                          (2001/C 227/61)                                       measures in force which are under review;
                                                                          —     Article 21(2) and (5) in that the Commission took into
                                                                                account information submitted by users beyond the time
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                limit set by the notice of initiation of the review
                                                                                proceedings;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                —     Article 21(5), in considering that the information submit-
European Communities on 16 June 2001 by Euroalliages,                           ted by the users was representative. In that respect it can
whose registered office is in Brussels, Péchiney Electrométallur-               be noted that the users who submitted information
gie, whose registered office is in Courbevoie (France) Vargon                   represented 10 % of Community consumption;
Alloys A.B., whose registered office is in Vargön (Sweden) and
                                                                          —     Article 21(7) in so far as the Commission took into
Ferroatlantica, whose registered office is in Madrid, represented
                                                                                account information submitted by users which was
by D Voillemot and Olivier Prost, Lawyers.
                                                                                unsubstantiated by actual evidence;
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               —     Article 6(6) as well as infringement of the right to a fair
—     annul the sole article of Commission Decision of 21 Feb-                  hearing by refusing to organise a meeting with the users
      ruary 2001 terminating the anti-dumping procedure                         to allow for exchange of views.
      concerning imports of ferro-silicon originating in Brazil,
      the People’s Republic of China, Kazakhstan, Russia,
      Ukraine and Venezuela, with regard to those imports
      originating in the People’s Republic of China, Russia,
      Ukraine and Kazakhstan;
—     order the European Commission to pay the costs.                     Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-137/99 and
                                                                                T-18/00 (1)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                    (2001/C 227/62)
Since the applicant companies in the present case are part of
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
the Community ferro-silicon industry, they object to the
Commission’s decision to terminate the anti-dumping pro-
cedure with regard to the importation of ferro-silicon originat-          By order of 3 April 2001, the President of the Court of First
ing in the People’s Republic of China, Kazakhstan, Russia and             Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
Ukraine. That Decision is based on the consideration that the             removal of the name of Athanasia Chrissanthaki from the list
maintenance of measures previously adopted against those                  of applicants in Joined Cases T-137/99 and T-18/00 Natalia
four countries would ‘clearly’ be contrary to the interests of            Martinez Páramo and Others v Commission of the European
the Community. To arrive at this conclusion, the defendant                Communities.
claims to have taken into account the period in which those
measures had been in place, assumed to have begun in 1987,                (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.99 and C 79 of 18.3.00.


title: Case C-30/01: Action brought on 24 January 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
7.4.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 108/5
      —      the Court of First Instance displayed an incorrect         —     refer the application for damages back to the Court of
             conception of the law by incorrectly weighing the                First Instance in order for the case to be argued and for
             evidence adduced with regard to free competition.                that application to be allowed;
             The Court of First Instance should have found that
             the Commission had obtained evidence of 7 written          —     order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
             offers and that 5 of those 7 offers led to the                   action and all the costs incurred by the appellant.
             conclusion of separate contracts.
—     Infringement of Article 68(1) of the Rules of Procedure           Pleas in law and main arguments
      of the Court of First Instance, on account of the failure
      by that Court to take evidence of its own motion from             The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
      witnesses.                                                        Case C-24/01 P (1).
—     The Court of First Instance should have awarded the
                                                                        (1) See p. 4 of this Official Journal.
      damages applied for, and the case should therefore be
      referred back to the Court of First Instance for further
      consideration; alternatively, the Court of Justice should
      itself award those damages to the appellant.
(1) OJ 1991 L 362, p. 89.
(2) OJ 1992 L 191, p. 22.                                               Action brought on 24 January 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the United Kingdom
                                                                                (Case C-30/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 108/08)
                                                                        An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Appeal brought on 19 January 2001 by Compagnie                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 January
Continentale (France) against the judgment delivered on                 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
8 November 2000 by the Second Chamber of the Court                      represented by Mr R. Wainwright, acting as Agent, with an
of First Instance of the European Communities in Cases                  address for service in Luxembourg.
T-494/93 and T-61/98 between Compagnie Continentale
(France) and the Commission of the European Communi-                    The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                ties
                                                                        —     declare that, by failing in respect of Gibraltar to adopt the
                        (Case C-25/01 P)                                      laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary
                                                                              to comply with Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June
                                                                              1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and
                         (2001/C 108/07)                                      administrative provisions in relation to the classification,
                                                                              packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (1) as
                                                                              amended by Directive 88/302/EEC (2), Directive
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 November                        91/410/EEC (3), Directive 92/32/EEC (4), Directive 92/69/
2000 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                  EEC (5), Directive 93/21/EEC (6), Directive 93/67/EEC (7)
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-485/93,                            Directive 93/72/EEC (8), Directive 93/101/EC (9), Directive
T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98 between L. Dreyfus & Cie                       93/105/EC (10), Directive 94/69/EC (11), Directive 96/54/
S.A., Glencore Grain Ltd, Compagnie Continentale (France)                     EC (12) and Directive 97/69/EC (13), Council Directive
and the Commission of the European Communities was                            87/18/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the harmonisation
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                  of the laws, regulations and administrative practice
ties on 19 January 2001 by Compagnie Continentale (France),                   relating to the application of good laboratory practice
represented by P.V.F. Bos and P. Chabrier, with an address for                and verification of their application for tests on chemical
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 4 Rue                     substances (14), Council Directive 93/12/EEC of 23 March
Carlo Hammer.                                                                 1993 relating to the sulphur content of certain liquid
                                                                              fuels (15) as amended by Directive 98/70/EC (16), Council
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                   Directive 79/113/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
                                                                              approximation of the laws in the Member States relating
                                                                              to the determination of the noise emission of construction
—     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                plant and equipment (17) as amended by Directive
      8 November 2000;                                                        81/1051/EEC (18) and Directive 85/405/EEC(19), Council
                                                                              Directive 84/533/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 1 April 1993;                        approximation of the laws in the Member States relating
 ---pagebreak--- C 108/6                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.4.2001
      to the permissible sound power level of compressors (20)           The United Kingdom has not notified the Commission of
      as amended by Directive 85/406/EEC(21), Council Direc-             the transposition into national law of the aforementioned
      tive 84/534/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approxi-               directives to cover the territory of Gibraltar. The Commission
      mation of the laws in the Member States relating to the            therefore maintains that the United Kingdom is in breach of
      permissible sound power level of tower cranes (22) as              its obligations under the Treaty.
      amended by Directive 87/405/EEC (23), Council Directive
      84/535/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approxi-
      mation of the laws in the Member States relating to the            (1) OJ 196, 16.8.1967, p. 1 (SE SER1 67, p. 234).
                                                                         (2) OJ L 133, 30.5.1988, p. 1.
      permissible sound power level of welding generators (24)
                                                                         (3) OJ L 228, 17.8.1991, p. 67.
      as amended by Directive 85/407/EEC (25), Council Direc-            (4) OJ L 154, 5.6.1992, p. 1.
      tive 84/536/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approxi-               (5) OJ L 383, 29.12.1992, p. 113.
      mation of the laws in the Member States relating to the            (6) OJ L 110, 4.5.1993, p. 20.
      permissible sound power level of power generators (26) as          (7) OJ L 227, 8.9.1993, p. 9.
      amended by Directive 85/408/EEC (27), Council Directive            (8) OJ L 258, 16.10.1993, p. 29.
      84/537/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approximation               (9) OJ L 13, 15.1.1994, p. 1.
      of the laws in the Member States relating to the permiss-          (10) OJ L 294, 30.11.1993, p. 21.
      ible sound power level of powered hand-held concrete-              (11) OJ L 381, 31.12.1994, p. 1.
      breakers and picks (28) as amended by Directive                    (12) OJ L 248, 30.9.1996, p. 1.
                                                                         (13) OJ L 343, 13.12.1997, p. 19.
      85/409/EEC (29), Council Directive 84/538/EEC of
                                                                         (14) OJ L 15, 17.1.1987, p. 29.
      17 September 1984 on the approximation of the laws in              (15) OJ L 74, 27.3.1993, p. 81.
      the Member States relating to the permissible sound                (16) OJ L 350, 28.12.1998, p. 58.
      power level of lawnmowers (30) as amended by Directive             (17) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979, p. 15.
      87/252/EEC (31), Directive 88/180/EEC (32) and Directive           (18) OJ L 376, 30.12.1981, p. 49.
      88/181/EEC (33), Council Directive 86/594/EEC of                   (19) OJ L 233, 30.8.1985, p. 9.
      1 December 1986 on airborne noise emitted by house-                (20) OJ L 300, 19.11.1984, p. 123.
      hold appliances(34), Council Directive 86/662/EEC of               (21) OJ L 233, 30.8.1985, p. 11.
      22 December 1986 on the limitation of noise emitted by             (22) OJ L 300, 19.11.1984, p. 130.
      hydraulic excavators, rope-operated excavators, dozers,            (23) OJ L 220, 8.8.1987, p. 60.
                                                                         (24) OJ L 300, 19.11.1984, p. 142.
      loaders and excavator-loaders (35) as amended by Direc-
                                                                         (25) OJ L 233, 30.8.1985, p. 16.
      tive 89/514/EEC (36) and Directive 95/27/EC (37), Euro-            (26) OJ L 300, 19.11.1984, p. 149.
      pean Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of                  (27) OJ L 233, 30.8.1985, p. 18.
      20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging                        (28) OJ L 300, 19.11.1984, p. 156.
      waste (38) and Commission Directive 97/35/EC of 18 June            (29) OJ L 233, 30.8.1985, p. 20.
      1997 (39) adapting to technical progress for the second            (30) OJ L 300, 19.11.1984, p. 171.
      time Council Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate                (31) OJ L 117, 5.5.1987, p. 22.
      release into the environment of genetically modified               (32) OJ L 81, 26.3.1988, p. 69.
      organisms (40) or in any event by failing to inform the            (33) OJ L 81, 26.3.1988, p. 71.
      Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its            (34) OJ L 344, 6.12.1986, p. 24.
                                                                         (35) OJ L 384, 31.12.1986, p. 1.
      obligations under these directives
                                                                         (36) OJ L 253, 30.8.1989, p. 35.
                                                                         (37) OJ L 168, 18.7.1995, p. 14.
                                                                         (38) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.
—     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                         (39) OJ L 169, 27.6.1997, p. 72.
                                                                         (40) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The third paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty provides
that directives are to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,      Action brought on 1 February 2001 by the Portuguese
on each Member State to which they are addressed. The first              Republic against Commission of the European Communi-
paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty provides that Member                                               ties
States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out
of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions                                   (Case C-42/01)
of the Community.
                                                                                (2001/C 108/09)
The Commission considers that it follows from the provisions             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
of the EC Treaty and of the 1972 Act of Accession to the                 ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities by Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom                   Communities on 1 February 2001 by the Portuguese Republic,
that the United Kingdom is under an obligation to extend the             represented by L. Inês Fernandes and M.L. Duarte, acting as
transposition of the directives referred to in its conclusions to        Agents, and M. Marques Mendes, advogado, with an address
cover the territory of Gibraltar.                                        for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-303/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014  — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/27

         Action brought on 24 June 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-303/14)
   2014/C 409/39
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and K. Herrmann, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by not notifying the Commission of the certification bodies for personnel and companies and the titles of certificates for personnel and companies designed to record activities in relation to specific fluorinated greenhouse gases which are the subject-matter of the Commission’s implementing regulations, and by failing to adopt the provisions on penalties for breaches of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases (1) and to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of that regulation, in conjunction with Article 12(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 303/2008, (2) Article 12(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 304/2008, (3) Article 7(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 305/2008, (4) Article 6(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 306/2008, (5) Article 4(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 307/2008, (6) Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 308/2008, (7) and Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

               —

               Order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 5(2) of Regulation No 842/2006 requires Member States to notify the Commission of their training and certification programmes for companies and personnel involved in the installation, maintenance or servicing of equipment and systems covered by Article 3(1) of that regulation and in the recovery of fluorinated greenhouse gases. This obligation is set out in greater detail by the Commission’s implementing regulations adopted on the basis of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 842/2006.
   The first plea is therefore based on the fact that the Republic of Poland has not to date forwarded to the Commission the names of the certification bodies for personnel and companies which carry out checks for leakage, installation, servicing or maintenance of stationary refrigeration equipment, air-conditioning equipment, heat-pump equipment, fire-protection systems and fire extinguishers, and which perform activities in connection with the recovery of those fluorinated greenhouse gases; nor has it forwarded to the Commission the titles of the certificates for personnel and companies which satisfy the requirements for certification set out in the Commission’s implementing regulations. In addition, no names have been forwarded of the certification bodies for personnel carrying out activities in connection with the recovery of fluorinated greenhouse gases from high-voltage switchgear and recovering solvents containing fluorinated greenhouse gases from equipment; nor have the titles been provided of certificates for personnel satisfying the requirements for certification set out in the Commission’s implementing regulations. Moreover, the Polish authorities have failed to forward to the Commission, in the form prescribed by Commission Regulation No 308/2008, the names of the attestation bodies for personnel and the titles of the attestation certificates for personnel meeting the requirements of Article 3(2) and of the annex to Regulation No 307/2008.
   The second plea alleges that the Commission was not notified of the national rules on penalties for breaches of the provisions of Regulation No 842/2006. The duty to determine penalties and to notify them to the Commission is, it submits, particularly important in order to ensure full efficacy of the obligations which Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Regulation No 842/2006 impose on operators of stationary equipment. In addition, the establishment of such penalties and their notification to the Commission are of fundamental importance for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the obligations which Article 7 of that regulation imposes on the manufacturers of products and equipment containing fluorinated greenhouse gases. Failure to comply with the prohibitions laid down in Articles 8 and 9 of Regulation No 842/2006 also required to be penalised by means of national rules, within the meaning of Article 13(1) of that regulation, which had to be notified to the Commission.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 161, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2008 L 92, p. 3; Commission Regulation No 303/2008 establishing minimum requirements and the conditions for mutual recognition for the certification of companies and personnel as regards stationary refrigeration, air conditioning and heat pump equipment containing certain fluorinated greenhouse gases.

      (3)  OJ 2008 L 92, p. 12; Commission Regulation No 304/2008 establishing minimum requirements and the conditions for mutual recognition for the certification of companies and personnel as regards stationary fire protection systems and fire extinguishers containing certain fluorinated greenhouse gases.

      (4)  OJ 2008 L 92, p. 17; Commission Regulation No 305/2008 establishing minimum requirements and the conditions for mutual recognition for the certification of personnel recovering certain fluorinated greenhouse gases from high-voltage switchgear.

      (5)  OJ 2008 L 92, p. 21; Commission Regulation No 306/2008 establishing minimum requirements and the conditions for mutual recognition for the certification of personnel recovering certain fluorinated greenhouse gas-based solvents from equipment.

      (6)  OJ 2008 L 92, p. 25; Commission Regulation No 307/2008 establishing minimum requirements for training programmes and the conditions for mutual recognition of training attestations for personnel as regards air-conditioning systems in certain motor vehicles containing certain fluorinated greenhouse gases.

      (7)  OJ 2008 L 92, p. 28; Commission Regulation No 308/2008 establishing the format for notification of the training and certification programmes of the Member States.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 April 1999 in Joined Cases T-148/96 and T-174/96: Ernesto Brognieri v Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Actions for annulment and damages - Whether admissible - Failure to comply with the judgment in Case T-583/93 - Article 26 of the Staff Regulations - Manifest error)

text:
18.9.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 265/9
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 22 April 1999
                         of 7 July 1999
                                                                        in Joined Cases T-148/96 and T-174/96: Ernesto Brognieri
                                                                               v Commission of the European Communities (1)
in Case T-106/96: Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                        (Officials — Actions for annulment and damages — Wheth-
                                                                        er admissible — Failure to comply with the judgment in Case
(ECSC — Action for annulment — Admissibility — State                    T-583/93 — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations — Manifest
aid — Individual decision authorising State aid to a steel                                             error)
undertaking — Legal basis — Article 4(c) and Article 95,
first paragraph, of the Treaty — Incompatibility with the
provisions of the Treaty — Principle of equal treatment —                                        (1999/C 265/16)
Principle of proportionality — Legitimate expectations —
Counterpart measures in exchange for public funding — No
capacity reduction required — Infringement of essential
                    procedural requirements)                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        In Joined Cases T-148/96 and T-174/96: Ernesto Brognieri, an
                        (1999/C 265/15)                                 official of the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        residing at Barasso (Italy), represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
                                                                        Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                        Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim v
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Florence
                  (Language of the case: German)                        Clotuche and Alberto Dal Ferro)
                                                                        — application, in Case T-148/96, for (1) annulment of the
                                                                             Commission decision on 28 November 1995 confirming
In Case T-106/96: Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl, established                  the decision of 22 February 1993 withdrawing the appli-
in Düsseldorf Germany, represented by Jochim Sedemund,                       cant from shift-work in the fire service and the Commission
Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service in Luxem-                  decision of 21 June 1996 rejecting the applicant’s com-
bourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue v                          plaint, and (2) compensation and interest for the material
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Paul                         and non-material damage suffered by the applicant; and
Nemitz and Frank Paul) supported by the Council of the
European Union (Agents: Guus -Houttuin and Stephan Mar-
quardt), application for annulment of Commission Decision               — in Case T-174/96, for (1) annulment of the Commission
96/315/ECSC of 7 February 1996 concerning aid to be granted                  decision of 30 November 1995 granting an allowance
by Ireland to the steel company Irish Steel (OJ 1996 L 121,                  contrary to the operative part of the judgment of the Court
p. 16) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber,                        of First Instance in Case T-583/93 P v Commission [1995]
Extended Composition), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos,                        ECR-SC II-433, in so far as that decision awards shiftwork
President, and R. Garcia-Valdecasas, V.Tiili, P. Lindh and P.                allowances in respect solely of the period between 1 March
Mengozzi Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has              1993 and 31 December 1993, and of the Commission
given a judgment on 7 July 1999, in which it:                                decision of 21 June 1996, referred to above, rejecting the
                                                                             applicant’s complaint, and (2) payment of all sums due to
                                                                             the applicant by way of damages to be paid in whole, both
1. Dismisses the action.                                                     principal and default interest — the Court of First Instance
                                                                             (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President,
                                                                             K. Lenaerts and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave
2. Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of the                a judgment on 22 April 1999, the operative part of which
     defendant.                                                              is as follows:
                                                                        1. The decision of 28 November 1995 addressed to the applicant
3. Orders the Council to bear its own costs.                                 by Mr Agazzi is annulled.
                                                                        2. The decision of 30 November 1995 addressed to the applicant
(1) OJ C 269 of 14.9.1996.                                                   by Mr Chambaud is annulled in so far as it restricts payment of
                                                                             the sums to the applicant by way of shiftwork allowances to the
                                                                             period between 1 March 1993 and 31 December 1993.
                                                                        3. The Commission is ordered to pay the applicant the sum of
                                                                             LIT 24 000 000.
 ---pagebreak--- C 265/10                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.9.1999
4. The Commission is required to pay that sum within a period of            2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those
     two months from the date on which the present judgment is                   incurred by the applicant.
     notified to it, failing which the amount payable shall be increased
     by default interest at the rate of 5 % per annum with effect from      3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
     the date of expiry of that period.
5. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.                              (1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996 and OJ C 8 of 11.1.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                             of 6 July 1999
                            of 22 April 1999                                in Case T-203/97: Bo Forvass v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-112/97: Monsanto Company v Commission of
                   the European Communities (1)                             (Officials — Temporary staff — Grading — Article 31(2)
                                                                            of the Staff Regulations — Duty to have regard for the
                                                                            welfare and interests of officials — Erroneous notice —
(Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 — Application to include a
                                                                                Protection of legitimate expectations)
recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST) in the list of
substances not subject to a maximum residue limit —
Rejection by the Commission — Action for annulment —                                                   (1999/C 265/18)
                              Admissibility)
                             (1999/C 265/17)                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Case T-203/97: Bo Forvass, a member of the temporary
                      (Language of the case: English)                       staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of tht
In Case T-112/97: Monsanto Company, a company with its                      Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
seat in Saint-Louis, Missouri (USA), represented initially by               office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v
Clive Stanbrook QC and Robert MacLean, Solicitor, and                       Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Julian
subsequently by Mr Stanbrook and by Debra Holland, Barris-                  Currall) — application, first, for annulment of the decisions of
ter, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers              the Commission of 22 July 1996 and 19 March 1997 inas-
of Arsène Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-Adélaide v Commission                    much as they respectively classify the applicant in grade A 5,
of the European Communities (Agents: initially Richard Wain-                step 3, and refuse to classify the applicant in grade A 4
wright and Fernando Castillo de la Torre, subsequently                      pursuant to Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations of officials
M. Wainwright), supported by the French Republic (Agents:                   of the European Communities, and, second, for damages —
Kareen Rispal-Bellanger, Frédéric Pascal, and Régine Loosli-                the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
Surrans, and subsequently by Ms Rispal-Bellanger, Ms Loosli-                J.D. Cooke, President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
Surrans and Christina Vasak) — application for the annulment                Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 July
of Commission Decision C(97) 148 final of 14 January 1997,                  1999, in which it:
rejecting the application by Monsanto Europe SA/NV for the
inclusion of Sometribove, a recombinant bovine somatotro-                   1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible inasmuch as it seeks an
phin (BST), in Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC)                              order of the Court of First Instance requiring the defendant to
No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying clown a Community                              classify the applicant in a fixed grade and step.
procedurc for the establishment of maximum residue limits of
veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin                2. Dismisses the application for annulment.
(OJ 1990 L 224, p. 1) — the Court (Second Chamber),
composed of: A. Potocki, President, C.W. Bellamy and                        3. Dismisses the application for damages.
A.W.H. Meij, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 22 Apri1 1999, in which it:                         4. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay three
                                                                                quarters of the costs of the applicant.
1. Annuls Commission Decision C(97) 148 final of 14 January
     1997, rejecting the application by Monsanto Europe SA/NV for
     the inclusion of Sometribove in Annex II to Council Regulation         (1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
     (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community
     procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of
     veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin.


title: Case F-78/09: Action brought on 17 September 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/43

         Action brought on 17 September 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-78/09)
   2009/C 312/71
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s request for reimbursement of the costs incurred in Case T-18/04, which the defendant was ordered to pay by judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2008, and for an order that the defendant pay compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision, in whatever form, by which the defendant rejected the request of 22 September 2008;

               —

               annul, in so far as necessary, the decision, in whatever form, by which the complaint of 8 April 2009 was rejected;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 15 882,31, together with default interest at the rate of 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation, with effect from the date of the request of 22 September 2008 to the present date, by way of compensation for the material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the contested decision and arising in the abovementioned period;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant, pro bono et ex aequo, the sum of EUR 6 500,00 or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant, including damage to his quality of life, as a result of the contested decision and arising in the period between the date when decision was adopted and the present;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant, for each day between tomorrow and the day on which the request of 22 September 2008 is granted in full and without any exception and the appropriate decisions or relevant acts, without any exception, are implemented, the sum of EUR 5 or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, to be paid on the first day of each month in respect of rights accrued during the previous month, by way of compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the contested decision and arising in the abovementioned period;

               —

               order the defendant to repay to the applicant all costs, fees and other expenses incurred in the proceedings.


13.12.2003            EN                   Official Journal of the European Union                                    C 304/21
       Removal from the register of Case C-75/03 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-200/03 (1)
                       (2003/C 304/35)                                                    (2003/C 304/36)
By order of 10 September 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal            By order of 17 September 2003 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-75/03: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
European Communities v Ireland.                                    from the register of Case C-200/03: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003.