title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di la Spezia by order of that court of 12 April 1996 in the criminal proceedings pending before it against Silvano Raso and Others (Case C-163/96)

text:
No C 197/ 14             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6 . 7. 96
2. If not, what are the consequences of invalidity for the                      terminal operator) gives rise to arrangements in the
      charging of customs duty in early May 1992 on wines                       market whereby users may have contractual
      originating in Serbia which were imported in the period                   relationships only with the terminal operator for the
      from mid-November 1991 to April 1992 and cleared for                      whole range of services which they need when visiting a
      warehousing in a customs warehouse ?                                      port in which the terminal operator or operators hold a
                                                                                dominant position in the market within the meaning of
      Are the quota-related preferential customs duties                         Article 86 of the Treaty ?
      granted in 1992 for wines from the territory of the
      former Yugoslavia other than Serbia applicable in that              3 . Do Articles 59 and 90 of the EC Treaty, in conjunction
      respect ?                                                                 with Article 86, in any event preclude national
                                                                                legislation which only allows an undertaking operating
                                                                                in a port to provide to other undertaking operating in
( ] ) OJ No L 315 , 15 . 11 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                                                the port, and in particular terminal operators, services
                                                                                limited to the mere supply of labour ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
Circondariale di la Spezia by order of that court of 12 April             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato
1996 in the criminal proceedings pending before it against                by order of that court of 9 January 1996 in the case of
                      Silvano Raso and Others                                          Regione Piemonte v. Sai Agricola SpA
                           ( Case C-163/96 )                                                         (Case C-164/96)
                             ( 96/C 197/27 )                                                           ( 96/C 197/28 )
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 Pretura                           European Communities by an order of the Consiglio di
Circondariale di la Spezia ( Magistrates' Court for the                   Stato ( Council of State ), of 9 January 1996, which was
District of La Spezia ) of 12 April 1996 , which was received             received at the Court Registry on 13 May 1996, for a
at the Court Registry on 13 May 1996, for a preliminary                   preliminary ruling in the case of Regione Piemonte v. Sai
ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court              Agricola SpA on the following question:
against Silvano Raso and Others on the following
questions :                                                               Whether, under Council Directive 72/159/EEC ( 1 ) and the
                                                                          subsequent Council Regulation No 797/85 (2 ) and having
1 . Does Article 5 9 of the Treaty preclude Italian legislation           regard to the aim of developing a common agricultural
      which prohibits an undertaking holding a port terminal              policy within a system free of discrimination between
      concession from having recourse to work done by other               farmers, there is room for the national or regional legislator
      undertakings — not set up by former port companies                  to provide for different treatment of individual farmers,
      and groups — comprising the supply of services of the               even if only in relation to the introduction of a special system
      kind provided for users including those belonging to                of identification based on a specific register set up solely for
      other Member States, with the further implication that,             that purpose ?
      as a result of the Italian legislation, the terminal operator
      itself is required to make available the whole range of             (*) OJ No English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 324 .
      services that might be required by users in the port                ( 2 ) OJ No L 93 , 30 . 3 . 1985 , p. 1 .
      terminal, giving rise to the risk of hampering access to
      the market for the provision of individual services by
      undertakings authorized to operate in the port other
      than those referred to by Article 21 ( 1 ) ( b) of Law
      No 84/94 ?
2. Does Article 90 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with
      Article 86 , preclude national legislation which (by                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Royal Court of
      reason of its effects on the market, namely, first, the fact        Jersey, by order of that court of 1 1 April 1996, in the case of
      that it prevents undertakings other than the terminal —             Rui Alberto Pereira Roque against His Excellency the
      not set up by former port companies and groups — from                                Lieutenant Governor of Jersey
      providing services within the confines of the port for                                         (Case C-171/96)
      would-be users; secondly, the fact that the terminal                                             ( 96/C 197/29 )
      operator is obliged to provide all port operations and
      services required at the terminal; and, thirdly, the fact
      that it is impossible for users to entrust certain services         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      to undertakings of their oWn choice other than the                  European Communities by an order of the Royal Court of


title: Action brought on 30 April 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-166/97)

text:
12 . 7 . 97                  EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 212/ 13
part in maintaining the fundamental balances of our                         Admittedly, at that time Article 130s involved only the
environment, particularly as regards soil, water, climate,                  'consultation' procedure, as did Article 43 of the Treaty.
fauna and flora . It is in contradiction to the preambles to                The first Regulation in that field, Council Regulation
those Regulations that the contested Regulation, which                      ( EEC ) No 3529/86 of 17 November 1986 on protection of
merely extends the existing provisions for five years,                      the Community's forests against fire ( 3 ), adopted before
mentions in its preamble that the protection of forests                     the entry into force of the Single European Act, had
against atmospheric pollution and certain unfavourable                      Articles 43 and 235 of the Treaty as its legal basis .
meteorological factors contributes directly to the
achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 39 ( 1 )
( b ) of the EC Treaty.                                                     From its content, it is clear that the contested Regulation
                                                                            concerns environmental protection. The measures which it
(')   OJ  No  L  51 , 21 . 2 . 1997, p . 9 .                                extends — in particular identification of the causes of
(2)   OJ  No  L  326 , 21 . 11 . 1986, p . 2 .                              fires, creation or improvement of systems of prevention,
(3)   OJ  No  L  165 , 15 . 6 . 1989, p . 8 .                               training of specialized personnel, analytical studies and
(4)   OJ  No   L 217, 31 . 7. 1992 , p . 1 .                                pilot projects to test new techniques and fire-fighting
                                                                            methods — are strictly linked to forests and their
                                                                            protection . Their aim is the protection of forests. Such
                                                                            measures cannot fall within the scope of the common
                                                                            agricultural policy. They are of no relevance to the
                                                                            products concerned by Articles 38 to 46 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                            namely those listed in Annex II to the Treaty. The
Action brought on 30 April 1997 by the European                             measures concerned fall within the scope of Article 130r
     Parliament against the Council of the European Union                   of the Treaty.
                                Case C-165 /97
                                 ( 97/C 212/22 )
                                                                            The stated objectives of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2158/92
                                                                             and its predecessor are the protection against fire and the
An action against the Council of the European Union was                      preservation of forest resources, which play an essential
 brought before the Court of Justice of the European                         part in maintaining the fundamental balances of our
 Communities on 30 April 1997 by the European                                environment, particularly as regards soil , water, climate,
 Parliament, represented by Johann Schoo, Head of                            fauna and flora . It is only as an ancillary matter that their
 Division in its Legal Service, and Joao Sant'Anna, of its                   preambles mention the safeguarding of the various
                                                                             functions which forests fulfil in rural areas . It is in
 Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service
 in Luxembourg at its General Secretariat, Mail and                          contradiction to the preambles of those Regulations that
 Registry Service, Tower Building, Office 017.                               the contested Regulation, which merely extends the
                                                                             existing provisions for five years, mentions in its preamble
                                                                             that protecting forests against fire directly contributes to
 The European Parliament claims that the Court should :                      the achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 39
                                                                             ( 1 ) ( b ) of the EC Treaty.
 — annul, pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty,
       Regulation ( EC ) No 308/97 ('), amending Regulation                  (') OJ No L 51 , 21 . 2 . 1997, p . 11 .
       ( EEC ) No 2158/92 ( 2 ) on the protection of the                     ( 2 ) OJ No L 217, 31 . 7 . 1992 , p . 3 .
       Community's forests against fire, and                                  (•') OJ No L 326 , 21 . 11 . 1986 , p. 5 .
 — order the Council of the European Union to pay the
       costs .
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                              Action brought on 30 April 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities against the French Republic
  The contested Regulation, which extends until
  31 December 2001 the duration of the scheme provided                                                  ( Case C-166/97)
  for by Council Regulation (EEC ) No 2158/92 of 23 July                                                   ( 97/C 212/23 )
  1992 on the protection of the Community's forests against
  fire, was adopted on the sole basis of Article 43 of the EC
  Treaty, relating to the common agricultural policy, which
  provides that the European Parliament is to be consulted .                   An action against the French Republic was brought before
  The legal basis for the Regulation should, however, have                     the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
  been Article 130s of the Treaty, relating to environmental                   30 April 1997 by the Commission of the European
  policy, which provides for the 'cooperation' procedure                       Communities, represented by Richard B. Wainwright,
  between the Council and the Parliament .                                     Legal Adviser, and Jean-Francis Pasquier, a national civil
                                                                               servant seconded to the Commission's Legal Service,
                                                                               acting as Agents, with an address for service in
  Regulation ( EEC ) No 2158/92 was itself adopted on the                      Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
  legal basis of Articles 43 and 130s of the EC Treaty.                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 212/ 14           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            12 . 7 . 97
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            provisions . The purpose of the agreement is not even to
                                                                        protect the natural environment.
— declare that, by failing to adopt special conservation
     measures concerning the habitats of birds in the Seine             Breach of Article 4 ( 4 ) of the Directive
     estuary and to take appropriate steps to avoid
     deterioration of those habitats, the French Republic               The establishment of a plant for the treatment            and deposit
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 79/           of titanogypsum in the estuary constitutes                a manifest
     409/EEC ( 1 ),
                                                                        deterioration of the habitat in question . No             importance
                                                                        can be attached to the fact that the plant is             outside the
— order the French Republic to pay the costs .                          area designated a SPA. The plant is in an                 area which
                                                                        should have been designated a SPA.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     (') Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
                                                                             conservation of wild birds ( OJ No L 103 , 25 . 4 . 1979 , p. 1 ).
The Seine estuary is one of the most important wetland
areas on the French coast from the ornithological point of
view and is visited by numerous species listed in Annex I
to Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild
birds . According to a scientific inventory of important
areas for the conservation of birds ( Zones Importantes                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du
pour la conservation des Oiseaux ( ZICO )) published in                 Travail de Bruxelles, by judgment of that court of 21 April
1994 under the auspices of the French Ministry of the                   1997, in the case of Barry Bank and Others against the
Environment, an area covering 21 900 hectares in the                                         Theatre Royal de la Monnaie
Seine estuary is identified as a site of major interest                                              Case C-178/97)
harbouring a number of wild birds regarded as being of
Community or international significance according to                                                  ( 97/C 212/24 )
classification criteria corresponding to those contained in
Directive 79/409/EEC .
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du
Breach       of     Article    4    (1 )   and     (2)   of   the       Travail de Bruxelles ( Brussels Labour Court ) of 21 April
Directive
                                                                        1997, received at the Court Registry on 7 May 1997, for
                                                                        a preliminary ruling in the case of Barry Bank and Others
The French authorities concluded an agreement with the                  against the Theatre Royal de la Monnaie on the following
                                                                        questions:
independent ports of Le Havre and Rouen to create a
reserve area of 3 350 hectares, made up of 2 000 hectares
of predominantly ecological interest and 1 300 hectares                 I.     1 . Does the concept of 'work' in Article 14a ( 1 ) ( a ) of
for industrial and port use where the natural environment                            Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 (') refer to any
would be preserved until they were used. 2 750 hectares of                           work, whether paid employment or self
that agreed reserve were designated a special protection                             employment, the duration of which does not
area ( SPA ) within the meaning of the Directive.                                    exceed 12 months ?
The surface of the SPA thus delimited is completely                            2 . If the concept of 'work' within the meaning of
inadequate and bears no relation to the significance of the                          Article 14 ( 1 ) ( a ) refers exclusively to work by a
ornithological site . It is clear from the Court's judgment of                       self-employed person, should this concept be
2 August 1993 in Case C-355/90 ( Commission v. Spain                                 defined by reference to the social security
 [ 1993 ] ECR p. 4221 ), that although Member States have a                          legislation of the Member State in which the
certain margin of discretion with regard to the choice of                            person is normally self-employed or by reference
SPAs, the classification of those areas is nevertheless                              to the social security legislation of the Member
                                                                                State in which the ' work ' is done ?
subject to certain ornithological criteria determined by the
Directive . A Member State does not comply with those
 criteria and thus fails to fulfil its obligations where it fails       II . What is the relevant unit of time which should be
to classify the parts of a habitat of particular importance                    taken into account in defining the term
 for birds in danger of extinction within the meaning of                       'simultaneously' in Article 14c of Regulation ( EEC )
 Article 4 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Directive or where it fails to                   No 1408/71 , or by what criteria can this term be
 classify wetlands of special importance for the migratory                     defined ?
 species referred to in Article 4 ( 4 ) of the Directive.
                                                                         III . ( a ) 1 . Does Form E 101 , the issue of which is
 The protection system which results from the reserve                                     provided for, in particular, by Articles 11a and
 which it was agreed to set up is inadequate . A mere                                     12a ( 7) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 (2 ),
 agreement has only legal effects limited to the parties. No                              have binding force as regards the legal
 mechanism is provided to ensure compliance with its                                      consequences attested to therein:


title: Case C-324/02: Action brought on 16 September 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
9.11.2002             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 274/19
received at the Court Registry on 12 September 2002, for a            Action brought on 16 September 2002 by the Com-
preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Petri Mikael              mission of the European Communities against the
Manninen on the following questions:                                                         Kingdom of Spain
1.   Is Article 56 of the Treaty establishing the European                                     (Case C-324/02)
     Community to be interpreted as precluding a corporation
     tax credit system like the Finnish one described above, in
     which the recipient of a dividend who is generally liable                                 (2002/C 274/32)
     to tax in Finland is granted a corporation tax credit in
     respect of a dividend paid by a domestic share company,
     but not in respect of dividend income he receives from a         An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
     share company registered in Sweden?                              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 Sep-
                                                                      tember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-
2.   If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative,       ties, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal
     may Article 58 EC be interpreted as meaning that the             Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
     provisions of Article 56 are without prejudice to Finland’s
     right to apply the relevant provisions of the Law on
     Corporation Tax Credits, since it is a condition for             The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
     obtaining a corporation tax credit in Finland that the
     company distributing the dividend has paid the corre-            —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     sponding tax or supplementary tax in Finland, which                    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     does not take place with respect to a dividend paid from               Council Directive 1999/30/EC (1) of 22 April 1999
     abroad, in which case taxation is not even carried out                 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen
     once?                                                                  dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and
                                                                            lead in ambient air or, in any event, by failing to
                                                                            communicate such provisions to the Commission, the
                                                                            Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                            that directive;
                                                                      —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten
(Sweden) by order of that Court of 10 September 2002 in               Pleas in law and main arguments
the case of Förvaltnings AB Stenholmen against Riksskat-
                            teverket
                                                                      The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 249 EC
                                                                      and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC requires the Member
                        (Case C-320/02)                               States to adopt the measures necessary to implement the
                                                                      directives addressed to them before the expiry of the period
                                                                      prescribed for that purpose. The period in question expired on
                        (2002/C 274/31)
                                                                      19 July 2001 without Spain’s having introduced the necessary
                                                                      measures.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                (1 ) OJ L 163, 29.6.1999, p. 41.
European Communities by order of the Regeringsrätten
(Supreme Administrative Court) (Sweden) of 10 September
2002, received at the Court Registry on 13 September 2002,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Förvaltnings AB
Stenholmen against Riksskatteverket (National Tax Board) on
the following questions:
                                                                      Action brought on 17 September 2002 by the Com-
1.   Can an animal be considered to be second-hand goods?             mission of the European Communities against the
                                                                                Kingdom of Spain
     If that question is answered in the affirmative, the Court
     is asked to answer the following question.
                                                                                (Case C-326/02)
2.   Is an animal which is purchased from a private individual
     (rather than a breeder) and which is sold, after training,                                (2002/C 274/33)
     for a specific purpose to be considered to be second-hand
     goods?
                                                                      An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 Sep-


title: Case T-146/15: Action brought on 23 March 2015 — hyphen v OHIM — Skylotec

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/34

         Action brought on 23 March 2015 — hyphen v OHIM — Skylotec
   (Case T-146/15)
   (2015/C 171/41)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: hyphen GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Skylotec GmbH (Neuwied, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of a polygon) — Community trade mark No 2 255 537

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 March 2015 in Case R 1506/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2000 in Case T-296/97: Alitalia — Linee aeree italiane SpA v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Recapitalisation of Alitalia by the Italian authorities — Classification of the measure — Private investor test — Examination by the Commission)

text:
C 108/14               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          7.4.2001
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 12 December 2000
                                                                                of 14 December 2000
in Case T-296/97: Alitalia — Linee aeree italiane SpA v
        Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           in Case T-613/97: Union Française de l’Express (Ufex) and
                                                                             Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)
(State aid — Recapitalisation of Alitalia by the Italian
authorities — Classification of the measure — Private
       investor test — Examination by the Commission)                      (State aid — Rights of the defence — Access to the file —
                                                                           Requirement to state reasons — Postal sector — Cross-
                         (2001/C 108/22)                                   subsidies between the reserved sector and the competitive
                                                                           sector — Concept of State aid — Normal market conditions)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (2001/C 108/23)
In Case T-296/97: Alitalia — Linee aeree italiane SpA,
established in Rome, Italy, represented by F. Sciaudone and
G.M. Roberti, of the Naples Bar, M. Siragusa, of the Rome Bar,                                (Language of the case: French)
G. Scassellati Sforzolini, of the Bologna Bar, M. Beretta, of the
Bergamo Bar, and F.M. Moretti, of the Venice Bar, and initially
by A. Tizzano, of the Naples Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss and                        In Case T-613/97: Union Française de l’Express (Ufex), estab-
Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill, against Commission of                  lished in Roissy-en-France (France), DHL International, estab-
the European Communities (Agents: D. Triantafyllou, A. Abate               lished in Roissy-en-France, Federal Express International
and E. Cappelli,) supported by Air Europe SpA, established in              (France), established in Gennevilliers (France), CRIE, established
Gallarate, Italy, represented by L. Pierallini and A. Costantini,          in Asnières (France), represented by É. Morgan de Rivery, of
of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at              the Paris Bar, and J. Derenne, of the Brussels and Paris Bars,
the Chambers of A. Lorang, 51 Rue Albert 1er, and by Air                   with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
One SpA, established in Chieti, Italy, represented by M. Merola,           A. Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix, against Commission of the
of the Rome Bar, and A. Sodano del Foro Adele, of the Naples               European Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and D. Triantafyl-
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                      lou), supported by French Republic, (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellan-
Chambers of A. Lorang, 51 Rue Albert 1er — application for                 ger and F. Million), by Chronopost SA, established in Issy-les-
annulment of Commission Decision 97/789/EC of 15 July                      Moulineaux (France), represented by V. Bouaziz Torron and
1997 concerning the recapitalisation of the company Alitalia               D. Berlin, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
(OJ 1997 L 322, p. 44) — the Court of First Instance (Third                Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch,
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: K. Lenaerts,                  and by La Poste, established in Boulogne-Billancourt (France),
President, J. Azizi, R.M. Moura Ramos, M. Jaeger and P. Men-               represented by H. Lehman, of the Paris Bar, with an address
gozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the                for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December 2000, in                    Route d’Esch, application for annulment of Commission
which it:                                                                  Decision 98/365/EC of 1 October 1997 concerning alleged
                                                                           State aid granted by France to SFMI-Chronopost (OJ 1998
                                                                           L 164, p. 37) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber,
1.    Annuls Commission Decision 97/789/EC of 15 July 1997
                                                                           Extended Composition), composed of: V. Tiili, President,
      concerning the recapitalisation of the company Alitalia;
                                                                           P. Lindh, R.M. Moura Ramos, J.D. Cooke and P. Mengozzi,
                                                                           Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
2.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those         judgment on 14 December 2000, in which it:
      incurred by the applicant;
3.    Orders Air One SpA and Air Europe SpA to bear their own              1.    Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 98/365/EC of
      costs.                                                                     1 October 1997 concerning alleged State aid granted by France
                                                                                to SFMI-Chronopost in so far as it finds that the logistical and
                                                                                commercial assistance provided by La Poste to its subsidiary
(1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.                                                         SFMI-Chronopost does not constitute State aid to SFMI-
                                                                                Chronopost;
                                                                           2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;


title: Case C-118/06: Order of the President of the Court of 29 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italie) — Diagram APS Applicazioni Prodotti Software v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 6

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 29 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italie) — Diagram APS Applicazioni Prodotti Software v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 6
   (Case C-118/06) (1)

   (2006/C 331/52)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.


title: Case T-399/03: Action brought on 13 December 2003 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 47/30                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          21.2.2004
—     Declare that the Commission of the European Communi-                The applicant claims that the Court should:
      ties failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty
      establishing the European Community by failing to
      adopt a decision following the complaint lodged by the              —     annul the decision of the Commission of 10 March 2003
      applicant on 8 December 2000;                                             in implement of the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                                Instance of the European Communities of 26 February
—     Order the Commission of the European Communities to                       2003 in Case T-212/01;
      pay the costs incurred by the applicant, amounting to a
      minimum of EUR 25 000.                                              —     annul the report of 25 October 2000 of the doctor in
                                                                                charge of the applicant’s case, notified to the applicant on
                                                                                10 March 2003, and the task entrusted to him;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay the costs;
The applicant states that it is acting on behalf of two
organisations which on 8 December 2000 had lodged a                       —     in the alternative, declare that the report of 25 October
complaint with the Commission concerning the methods of                         2000 must be disregarded in the procedure considering
public-sector hospital financing by the French State and, more                  the aggravation of the applicant’s occupational disease
specifically, an integrated plan in two protocols signed on 13                  and, if necessary, in the procedure for reopening a request
and 14 March 2000, under which the French Minister for                          that the disease be recognised as an occupational disease.
employment and solidarity undertook to procure additional
funding for those hospitals. According to the applicant, the
Commission has never stated its position on the statements
made in that complaint.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its action, the applicant alleges infringement of
Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty and of Council Regulation
(EC) No 659/19991 (1). It states that the period of 39 months             On 7 June 2000, the applicant, a former official of the
which has passed since the complaint was lodged exceeds the               Commission who was granted retirement on the ground of
reasonable time within which the Commission has to adopt a                total permanent invalidity as a result of an occupational
decision.                                                                 disease, submitted a request on the basis of an alleged
                                                                          aggravation of his occupational disease. By decision notified to
                                                                          the applicant by letter of 16 November 2000, the Commission
(1) 1 Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
    down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC       suspended the procedure provided for by Article 22 of the
    Treaty, OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.                                           Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties against the risk of accident and of occupational disease
                                                                          and decided not to take action on the applicant’s request. As a
                                                                          result of an action brought by the applicant, that decision of
                                                                          the Commission was annulled by the Court of First Instance
                                                                          by judgment of 26 February 2003 (1). On 10 March 2003, the
                                                                          Commission wrote to the applicant following the judgment
                                                                          delivered by the Court in order to transmit to him of the report
Action brought on 13 December 2003 by Arnaldo Lucac-                      of the doctor in charge of his case and to inform him that it
cioni against the Commission of the European Communi-                     could not grant his request because what was involved was a
                                ties                                      draft decision as referred to in Article 21 of the Rules.
                         (Case T-399/03)
                                                                          By the present application, the applicant seeks the annulment
                                                                          of the decision contained in the letter of 10 March 2003 and
                          (2004/C 47/59)                                  of the doctor’s report. In support of his claims, he alleges failure
                                                                          to comply with the judgment of the Court of 26 February 2003
                   (Language of the case: French)                         in Case T-212/01, breach of the rights of defence, material
                                                                          errors, and breach of the duty to state reasons.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          (1) Case T-212/01, published in OJ 2001 C 331, p. 25. Judgment
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    Notice in OJ 2003 C 112, p. 31.
European Communities on 13 December 2003 by Arnaldo
Lucaccioni, residing in St-Leonard-on-Sea (United Kingdom),
represented by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia Bassas and Karine
Delvolvé, lawyers.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2002 in Case T-106/01: Noé Youssourum v Council of the European Union (Officials — Pensions — Transfer of the actuarial equivalent of retirement pension rights acquired in the course of occupational activities prior to entry into the service of the Communities)

text:
24.8.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 202/25
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 13 June 2002
                                                                                of 13 June 2002
in Case T-74/01: Albano Ferrer de Moncada v Commission
                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           in Case T-106/01: Noé Youssourum v Council of the
                                                                                European Union (1)
(Officials — Article 19 of the Staff Regulations — Request
for leave to produce documents in proceedings before a
                           national court)                                 (Officials — Pensions — Transfer of the actuarial equivalent
                                                                           of retirement pension rights acquired in the course of
                                                                           occupational activities prior to entry into the service of the
                          (2002/C 202/37)                                                             Communities)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2002/C 202/38)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-74/01: Albano Ferrer de Moncada, an official of
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Luxembourg, represented by L. Misson and L. Wysen, avocats,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and
D. Waelbroeck) — application, first, for annulment of the
Commission’s decision of 19 January 2001 implicitly rejecting              In Case T-106/01: Noé Youssourum, an official of the Council
the complaint lodged by the applicant against the Com-                     of the European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by
mission’s decision of 28 August 2000 refusing him leave to                 J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, avocats, with an address for service in
produce certain documents in proceedings before a Luxem-                   Luxembourg, v Council of the European Union (Agents:
bourg criminal court and, second, for compensation — the                   F. Anton and A. Pilette) — application for annulment of the
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jae-              Council’s decision of 8 June 2000 fixing the calculation of the
ger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; J. Plingers,         number of years of pensionable service to be credited in
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  consequence of the transfer to the Community pension scheme
13 June 2002, in which it:                                                 of the applicant’s pension rights acquired by him under the
                                                                           Greek scheme — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
                                                                           composed of: M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
1.    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 19 January 2001                  Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
      implicitly rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant           judgment on 13 June 2002, in which it:
      against the Commission’s decision of 28 August 2000 refusing
      him leave to produce the documents referred to in that complaint
      in proceedings before a Luxembourg criminal court;
                                                                           1.    Dismisses the application;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
                                                                           2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those
      of the applicant.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
(1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 October 1999 in Case C-433/97 P: IPK-München GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Annulment of a decision of the Commission to refuse to pay the balance of financial assistance)

text:
C 6/6                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             8.1.2000
European Communities, employed in the European Institute                   Divisione Sintetici SpA and Bodetex BVBA on the interpret-
for Transuranic Elements, Karlsruhe (Germany), represented                 ation of Articles 2 and 5(1) of the abovementioned Convention
by J.-N. Louis, T. Demaseure and A. Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,           of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, Rue de Cessange — appeal against                Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 and
Communities (Third Chamber) of 10 July 1997 in Case                        — amended text — p. 77) — the Court composed of:
T-81/96 Apostolidis and Others v Commission [1997] ECR-                    G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puisso-
SC I-A-207 and II-607, seeking to have that judgment set                   chet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Presidents of Chambers), J.C. Moit-
aside, the other party to the proceedings being Commission of              inho de Almeida (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm
the European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall),             and L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges; P. Léger,
supported by the Council of the European Union (Agents:                    Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
M. Bishop and D. Canga Fano) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                  given a judgment on 5 October 1999, in which it has ruled:
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,
G. Hirsch, J.L. Murray (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and                      On a proper construction of Article 5(1) of the Convention of
R. Schintgen, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von                  27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judg-
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a                 ments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the
judgment on 5 October 1999, in which it:                                   Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
                                                                           Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
1. Dismisses the appeal in its entirety;                                   Northern Ireland, the same court does not have jurisdiction to hear
                                                                           the whole of an action founded on two obligations of equal rank
2. Orders the applicants, the Commission of the European Com-              arising from the same contract when, according to the conflict rules
    munities and the Council of the European Union to bear their           of the State where that court is situated, one of those obligations is to
    own costs.                                                             be performed in that State and the other in another Contracting
                                                                           State.
(1) OJ No C 357 of 22.11.1997.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 5 October 1999
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-420/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                          of 5 October 1999
the Hof van Cassatie): Leathertex Divisione Sintetici SpA
                        v Bodetex BVBA (1)
                                                                           in Case C-433/97 P: IPK-München GmbH v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
(Brussels Convention — Interpretation of Articles 2 and
5(1) — Commercial agency agreement — Action founded on
                                                                           (Appeal — Annulment of a decision of the Commission to
separate obligations arising from the same contract and
                                                                                refuse to pay the balance of financial assistance)
regarded as equal in rank — Jurisdiction of the court seised
                     to hear the whole action)
                                                                                (2000/C 6/12)
                           (2000/C 6/11)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                          In Case C-433/97 P: IPK-München GmbH, established in
                                                                           Munich (Germany), represented by H.-J. Priess, of the Brussels
In Case C-420/97: Reference to the Court under the Protocol                Bar, 13 Place des Barricades, B-1000 Brussels — appeal against
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of            the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the                Communities (First Chamber) of 15 October 1997 in Case
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters                   T-331/94 IPK v Commission [1997] ECR 11-1665, seeking to
by the Hof van Cassatie, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in              have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
the proceedings pending before that court between Leathertex               being Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
 ---pagebreak--- 8.1.2000                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 6/7
J. Grunwald) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                       91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ
P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, J.L. Murray (Rappor-               1991 L 377, p. 20), as amended by Council Directive 94/31/EC
teur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;                 of 27 June 1994 (OJ 1994 L 168, p. 28) — the Court (Fourth
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October 1999,                 Chamber), composed of: J.L. Murray, acting as President of the
in which it:                                                                 Fourth Chamber, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and R. Schint-
                                                                             gen, Judges; P: Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Adminis-
1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                 trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October
     15 October 1997 in Case T-331/94 IPK v Commission in so                 1999 in which it has ruled:
     far as it dismissed the claim of IPK-München GmbH for
     annulment of the Commission’s decision of 3 August 1994 to              1. ‘Temporary storage’ of waste must be distinguished from ‘storage
     refuse to pay the balance of financial assistance granted to                 pending’ further operations and is not a ‘management operation’
     support a project to create a database of information on ecological          within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Directive
     tourism in Europe, and ordered the applicant to pay the costs;               75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council
                                                                                Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991.
2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for it to give
     judgment on the claim of IPK-München GmbH for annulment                 2. The competent national authorities are required, with regard to
     of the decision of 3 August 1994;                                            temporary storage operations, to ensure that the obligations
                                                                                arising from Article 4 of Directive 75/442 are complied with.
3. Orders the costs to be reserved.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
( 1) OJ No C 55 of 20.2.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                          (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 12 October 1999
                          of 5 October 1999
                                                                             in Case C-213/98: Commission of the European Communi-
in Joined Cases C-175/98 and C-177/98 (references for a                                                ties v Ireland (1)
preliminary ruling from the Pretore di Udine): Criminal
proceedings against Paolo Lirussi (C-175/98) and Frances-
                       ca Bizzaro (C-177/98) (1)                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                                Directive 92/100/EEC)
(Waste — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/689/EEC —
Definition of temporary storage, pending collection, on the                                             (2000/C 6/14)
site where it is produced — Definition of waste management)
                             (2000/C 6/13)                                                       (Language of the case: English)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                             In Case C-213/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agent: K. Banks) v Ireland (Agent: M.A. Buckley) — application
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published       for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                     in the European Court Reports)                          and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                             Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on
In Joined Cases C-175/98 and C-177/98: references to the                     rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234                    copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346,
EC) from the Pretore di Udine (Italy) for a preliminary ruling               p. 61) and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
in the criminal proceedings pending before that court between                Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty
Paolo Lirussi (Case C-175/98) and Francesca Bizzaro (Case                    — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de
C-177/98) — on the interpretation of Council Directive                       Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur)
75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194,                          and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R.
p. 39), as amended by Council Directive (EEC) 91/156/EEC of                  Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 October 1999,
18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), and Council Directive                   in which it:


C 213/44                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       6.9.2003
        Removal from the register of Case T-35/02 (1)                               Removal from the register of Case T-62/03 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 213/88)                                                             (2003/C 213/90)
                    (Language of the Case: Italian)                                             (Language of the Case: French)
By order of 8 April 2003 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  By order of 19 June 2003 the President of the Fourth Chamber
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-35/02: Alitalia             of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
— Linee Aeree Italiane SpA v Commission of the European                     ordered the removal from the register of Case T-62/03: Georges
Communities.                                                                Vassilakis v Commission of the European Communities.
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.05.2002.                                                 (1 ) OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.
        Removal from the register of Case T-103/02 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-85/03 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 213/89)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/91)
                   (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
By order of 19 June 2003 the President of the Fifth Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                            By order of 18 June 2003 the President of the Fourth Chamber
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-103/02: Ineos
                                                                            of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Phenol GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European
                                                                            ordered the removal from the register of Case T-85/03:
Communities.
                                                                            Government of the Cayman Islands v Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities.
( 1) OJ C 156 of 29.06.2002.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 124 of 24.05.2003.


C 55/26               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   20.2.98
     also, as the case may be, the subsequent period during         Instance of the European Communities on 2 December
     which his widow receives a widow's pension,                    1997 by Alzetta Mauro, Antonini Maria Luisa, Avon
                                                                    Maria Angela, Avon Pietro, Biasotto Marzio, Bianchin
                                                                    Roberto, Bagatin Venanzio, Bit Leo, Bortolus Giuseppe,
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                    Bortolussi Urbano, Brovedani Francesco, Bot Roberto,
                                                                    Carcione Leone, Casagrande Elio, Cicagna Giuseppe,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Cogato Luigi, Corradini Franco, Cozzi Aldo, Dal Pos
                                                                    Marinella, De Re Guido, De Zotti Giovanni, Favalessa
                                                                    Enzo, Furlan Giuseppe, Marchese Michelino, Marson
From March 1991 the applicant, who has been in
                                                                    Graziella, Miorini Pierluigi, Picolo Claudio, Pinna Mario,
retirement since 1 November 1996, was a grade A 4
                                                                    Pivetta Giorgio, Pivetta Luciano Stelvio, Pizzolitto Enrico,
official employed as the Head of the large and important
                                                                    Sferruggia Mariano, represented by Antonia Pili, of the
Management Support Unit of the Joint Research Centre at
                                                                    Pordnone Bar, Anselmo Barone and Giancarlo Pezzano, of
Ispra. He claims that, before being transferred to that
                                                                    the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
post, he was told by his then superior that this must and
                                                                    at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2, rue du Fort
would lead to his promotion to grade A 3. However, he
                                                                    Rheinsheim.
was subsequently denied that promotion. The applicant is
now contesting the failure to grant him the promotion
promised to him in 1991, the continuing failure to                  The applicants claim that the Court should:
promote him during the period from 1991 to 1996 and
the fact that he was not promoted in 1996 with
retroactive effect from 1 November 1995. To that end, the           Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
applicant invokes the prohibition of discrimination and/or               30 July 1997,
the principle of equal treatment, together with the duty
incumbent on the defendant to have regard for the
interests and welfare of officials, since the applicant, like       Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
the other heads of units within the administration of the                inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
Joint Research Centre, was entitled to be employed in an                 the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
A 3 post. The applicant bases his claim for compensation                 the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
on the fact that the manner in which the specific                        was paid,
procedure for the promotion of officials to grade A 3 was
held in 1996 was legally open to challenge. Thus, not only          Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
were the reports concerning the applicant not produced by                Communities to pay the costs.
the due date; in addition, the contemporary reports were
not submitted during the course of the selection
procedure. Had the procedure been correctly followed, the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
applicant would have been promoted, with retroactive
effect from 1 November 1995, to an A 3 post becoming
vacant following the retirement of another official. Before         The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
himself going into retirement, the applicant would have             relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
worked for a whole year in that position. He therefore              Giulia v. Commission (1).
claims that he is entitled to be placed in the position in
which he would have found himself if the defendant had              (1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
fulfilled its obligations in the correct manner. This means
that he is entitled to receive compensation for the material
damage suffered by him, in the form of payment of the
difference between the remuneration of an A 4 official and
an A 3 official, together with a corresponding adjustment
in respect of pension payments.
                                                                    Action brought on 9 December 1997 by The Bavarian
                                                                    Lager Company Limited against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-309/97)
                                                                                (98/C 55/55)
Action brought on 2 December 1997 by Mauro Alzetta
and Others against the Commission of the European
                         Communities                                                (Language of the case: English)
                       (Case T-298/97)
                         (98/C 55/54)                               An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 9 December
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    1997 by the Bavarian Lager Company Limited,
                                                                    represented by Stephen Hornsby, with an address for
An action against the Commission of the European                    service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of AndreÂ Marc,
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   56Ð58 rue Charles Martel.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.2.98               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 55/27
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           April 1997 that in view of the proposed review of the
                                                                      GBP the Article 169 procedure had been suspended and
                                                                      the reasoned opinion had not been served on the United
Ð annul the Commission's Decision dated 16 May 1997,                  Kingdom Government.
     9 July 1997 and 18 September 1997 in so far as it
     relates to refusal of access to the following documents:
                                                                      The applicant remains of the opinion that the amended
                                                                      GBP still contravenes Article 30 and that the Commission
     The reasoned opinion of the Commission formulated                was mistaken in its decision to terminate the Article 169
     following an investigation into the provisions of                procedure against the United Kingdom. It considers that
     Article 7(3) of The Supply of Beer (Tied Estates) Order          access to the reasoned opinion will assist in its action
     1989 SI 1989/2390,                                               against the United Kingdom Government because that
                                                                      opinion will formally reflect the Commission's views as to
                                                                      the legality under Community law of the GBP as
Ð order that the Commission pay the costs of these                    originally drafted and will enable the applicant's legal
     proceedings.                                                     representatives to advise at a preliminary stage on the
                                                                      likelihood of success in an action against the United
                                                                      Kingdom Government before undertaking the expense of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      litigation.
The applicant, an importer of German beer mainly for
sale in public houses and bars in the North of England,               Nevertheless, the Commission refused repeated requests by
found itself unable to sell its products as a large number            the applicant for a copy of the reasoned opinion on the
of public houses in the United Kingdom are covered by                 ground that refusal to grant access to the reasoned
tie' arrangements under which they are obliged to                    opinion was justified where disclosure could undermine
purchase their supplies of beer from particular brewers               the protection of the public interest, in particular where
under exclusive purchasing agreements and because of the              Commission inspections          and investigations       were
overwhelming market dominance enjoyed by the major                    concerned. This exception is provided for in the Code of
British brewers.                                                      Conduct concerning public access to Commission and
                                                                      Council documents, adopted by the Commission on
                                                                      8 February 1994.
In 1989 The Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) Order 1989 SI
1989/2390 was brought into effect by the United Kingdom
Government. This order provided that those UK brewers                 The applicant submits that this approach is contrary to
with an interest in more than 2 000 pubs would be                     this Code of Conduct which provides that the public will
obliged to allow the tenants of those pubs the opportunity            have the widest possible access to documents held by the
to purchase a guest beer' from another brewery.                      Commission'. Furthermore, it is in particular contrary to
Article 7(2)(a) (known as the Guest Beer Provision GBP')             the legal principles set forth by the Court of First Instance
provided that the guest beer should be a cask                        in Case T-105/95 (WWF UK Worldwide Fund for Nature
conditioned' beer with an alcoholic strength exceeding                v. Commission of the European Communities).
1,2 % by volume.                                                      Fundamental objectives of proper administration,
                                                                      transparency and accountability demand that the reasoned
                                                                      opinion be released to the applicant as requested.
This provision had the effect of barring the applicant's
product from the pubs controlled by the regional brewers.
Therefore, the applicant contends that the GBP represents
a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative
restriction on imports and is therefore illegal pursuant to
Article 30 of the EC Treaty. By effectively denying the
British public the opportunity to taste German beer, the              Action brought on 16 December 1997 by Nederlandse
GBP restricts competition and consumer choice at both                      Antillen against the Council of the European Union
wholesale and retail levels.
                                                                                (Case T-310/97)
                                                                                (98/C 55/56)
Having regard to these circumstances, the applicant
submitted a complaint to the Commission in April 1993,
which by notification to the applicant in September 1995                             (Language of the case: English)
initiated an investigation into the GBP and had served a
notice on the United Kingdom Government to that effect
in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 169             An action against the Council of the European Union was
of the EC Treaty. After a press release issued by the                 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Commission in August 1996 announcing that the decision                Communities on 16 December 1997 by Nederlandse
had been taken to serve a reasoned opinion on the United              Antillen, represented by P. V. F. Bos and M. M. Slotboom,
Kingdom Government, the United Kingdom Government                     of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in
announced a proposal to amend the GBP. As a result of                 Luxembourg at the offices of Loesch & Wolter, 11, rue
this, the applicant was informed by the Commission in                 Goethe.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 2 April 1998 in Case T-86/97: Réa Apostolidis v Court of Justice of the European Communities (Officials - Suspension of promotion procedure - Disciplinary proceedings)

text:
C 166/14             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   30.5.98
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          BeÂreldange (Luxembourg), represented initially by Alain
                      of 31 March 1998                             Levy, of the Paris Bar, and subsequently by Jean-NoeÈl
                                                                   Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
in Case T-129/96: Preussag Stahl AG v Commission of the            Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson, 30 Rue de
                  European Communities (1)                         Cessange, v Court of Justice of the European Communities
(State aid to the steel industry Ð Notification of planned         (Agents: Timothy Millett and Aloyse May) Ð application
aid Ð Expiry of the validity of the relevant provisions of         for annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of
the ECSC Aid Code Ð Grant of the planned aid Ð                     11 July 1996 suspending the procedure for filling one of
Decision finding the aid to be incompatible and ordering           the three positions declared vacant by vacancy notice
         its repayment Ð Legitimate expectations)                  CJ 91/95, as confirmed by the decision of 10 December
                                                                   1996 expressly rejecting the complaint lodged by the
                        (98/C 166/36)                              applicant against the first decision, for the destruction of
                                                                   an alleged parallel file and for payment of BFR 1 000 000
               (Language of the case: German)                      by way of compensation for the non-material damage
                                                                   suffered Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
In Case T-129/96: Preussag Stahl AG, established in                composed of P. Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. D.
Salzgitter (Germany), represented by Jochim Sedemund,              Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service in               has given a judgment on 24 April 1998, in which it:
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-
Rue, supported by Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
Ernst Röder, Bernd Kloke, Holger Wissel and Oliver                 1. Dismisses the action;
Axster), against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Dimitris Triantafyllou and Paul
Nemitz) Ð application for the annulment of Commission              2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Decision 96/544/ECSC of 29 May 1996 concerning State
aid to Walzwerk Ilsenburg GmbH (OJ L 233 of
                                                                   (1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.
14.9.1996, p. 24) Ð the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: V. Tiili,
President, C. P. BrieÈt, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki and J. D.
Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 31 March 1998, in which it:
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those                                  of 24 March 1998
    of the Commission;
                                                                   in Case T-175/94 (92):International Procurement Services
                                                                        SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)
3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its
    own costs.                                                                           (Taxation of costs)
                                                                                (98/C 166/38)
(1) OJ C 318 of 26.10.1996.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   In Case T-175/94 (92): International Procurement Services
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          SA, established in Brussels, represented by Peter de Troyer,
                       of 2 April 1998                             of the Oudenaarde Bar, and Lydie Lorang, of the
                                                                   Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
in Case T-86/97: ReÂa Apostolidis v Court of Justice of the
                                                                   Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 6 Rue Heine, v
                  European Communities (1)
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
(Officials Ð Suspension of promotion procedure Ð                   EÂtienne Lasnet) Ð application for taxation of costs made
                  Disciplinary proceedings)                        pursuant to the judgment delivered by the Court of First
                                                                   Instance on 11 July 1996 in Case T-175/94 International
                        (98/C 166/37)
                                                                   Procurement Services SA v Commission [1996] ECR II-
                                                                   729 Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
                (Language of the case: French)                     composed of J. Azizi, President, and R. García-Valdecasas
                                                                   and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
In Case T-86/97: ReÂa Apostolidis, an official of the Court        on 24 March 1998, the operative part of which is as
of Justice of the European Communities, residing at                follows:


title: Case T-361/08: Action brought on 27 August 2008 — Peek & Cloppenburg and van Graaf v OHIM — Thailand (Thai Silk)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/42

         Action brought on 27 August 2008 — Peek & Cloppenburg and van Graaf v OHIM — Thailand (Thai Silk)
   (Case T-361/08)
   (2008/C 301/71)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg, Germany) and van Graaf GmbH & Co. KG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: V. von Bombard, A. Renck, T. Dolde and J. Pause, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Thailand
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) No R 1677/2007-4 of 10 June 2008

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Thailand

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark ‘Thai Silk’ with the colours ‘dark blue and white’ for goods in Classes 24 and 25 (Registration No 4 099 297)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the Applicants

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Representation of a black and white peacock for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue due to their similar overall impression.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2003 in Case T-114/02: Babyliss SA v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Concentrations — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Action brought by a third party — Admissibility — Phase one undertakings — Trade mark licence — Amendments to undertakings — Time-limits — Financial assistance provided by the State — Derisory trade-in price — Serious doubts concerning the compatibility of the concentration with the common market — Absence of undertaking with regard to markets posing serious competition problems)

text:
7.6.2003                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 135/27
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                address for service in Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation
                                                                            in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                           of 9 April 2003                                  (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and O. Waelbroeck): Action
                                                                            brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
in Case T-155/01: Robert Walton v Commission of the                         the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                    European Communities ( 1)                               Marks and Designs) of 6 July 2001 (Case R 864/1999-1),
                                                                            relating to opposition proceedings between Durferrit GmbH
(Temporary staff — Dismissal for unsatisfactory perform-                    and Kolene Corporation, the Court of First Instance (Fourth
ance of duties — Action for annulment and for compensation                  Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and
                             for dismissal)                                 P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
                                                                            Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 April 2003, in which it:
                           (2003/C 135/41)
                                                                            1.     Dismisses the action;
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
In Case T-155/01, Robert Walton, a former member of
the temporary staff of the Commission of the European
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.
Communities, residing in Oxford (United Kingdom), represent-
ed by P. Harris, Barrister, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: J. Currall): Application principally for
annulment of the letter of 3 October 2000, whereby the
Commission terminated the applicant’s employment as a
member of the temporary staff, and for compensation for
breach of his contract of employment, the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: N.J. Forwood,
President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
9 April 2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                of 3 April 2003
1.     The application is dismissed.
2.     The parties shall bear their own costs.                              in Case T-114/02: Babyliss SA v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities ( 1)
( 1) OJ C 275 of 29.09.2001.
                                                                            (Competition — Concentrations — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            No 4064/89 — Action brought by a third party — Admissi-
                                                                            bility — Phase one undertakings — Trade mark licence —
                                                                            Amendments to undertakings — Time-limits — Financial
                                                                            assistance provided by the State — Derisory trade-in price
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            — Serious doubts concerning the compatibility of the
                                                                            concentration with the common market — Absence of
                           of 9 April 2003
                                                                            undertaking with regard to markets posing serious compe-
                                                                                tition problems)
in Case T-224/01: Durferrit GmbH v Office for Harmonis-
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                               (OHIM) (1)                                                             (2003/C 135/43)
(Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier
word mark TUFFTRIDE — Application for Community                                                 (Language of the case: French)
word mark NU-TRIDE — Likelihood of confusion —
Likelihood of association — Trade marks which are contrary
to public policy or to accepted principles of morality —
Article 7(1)(f) and Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation                   In Case T-114/02: Babyliss SA, established in Montrouge
                            (EC) No 40/94)                                  (France) represented by J.-P. Gunther, lawyer, supported by De
                                                                            Longhi SpA, established in Trevisso (Italy), represented by
                           (2003/C 135/42)                                  M. Merola, D. Domenicucci and I. van Schendel, lawyers,
                                                                            against Commission of the European Comunities (Agents:
                    (Language of the case: English)                         V. Superti, K. Wiedner and F. Lelièvre), supported by SEB SA,
                                                                            established in Écully (France), represented by D. Voillemot
                                                                            and S. Hautbourg, lawyers — application for annulment of
In Case T-224/01, Durferrit GmbH, established in Mannheim                   Commission Decision D/228078 of 8 January 2002 not to
(Germany), represented by P. Koch Moreno, lawyer, with an                   oppose the concentration between SEB and Moulinex and to
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/28                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         7.6.2003
declare it compatible with the common market and the EEA                   (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the
Agreement, subject to compliance with the undertakings                     Chamber, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; Blanca Pastor, Deputy
proposed (Case COMP/M.2621 — SEB v Moulinex) — the                         Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 April 2003, in which it:
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lena-
erts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio,               1.    Annuls the decision of the Commission not to promote the
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on                   applicant to Grade B 2 in the 2001 promotions procedure;
3 April 2003, in which it:
                                                                           2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs;
1.     Annuls Commission Decision D/228078 of 8 January 2002
       not to oppose the concentration between SEB and Moulinex            (1 ) OJ C 156 of 29.6.02.
       and to declare it compatible with the common market and the
       EEA Agreement, subject to compliance with the undertakings
       proposed (Case COMP/M.2621 — SEB v Moulinex) so far as
       concerns the markets in Italy, Spain, Finland, the United
       Kingdom and Ireland;
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                                of 1 April 2003
3.     Orders the applicant and the Commission to bear their own
       costs;                                                              in Case T-11/01: Catherine Mascetti v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
4.     Orders SEB SA and De Longhi SpA to bear their own costs.
                                                                           (Contract as a member of the temporary staff — Admissi-
                                                                           bility — Act adversely affecting an official — Compliance
( 1) OJ C 144 of 15.06.02.                                                 with time-limits under the Staff Regulations — Second
                                                                           renewal of a contract as a member of the temporary staff —
                                                                                Articles 2(d), 8 and 47 of the CEOS)
                                                                                (2003/C 135/45)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               In Case T-11/01: Catherine Mascetti, a former member of
                                                                           the temporary staff of the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, residing in Leggiuno (Italy), represented by
                           of 9 April 2003                                 B. Nascimbene and M. Condinanzi, lawyers, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
in Case T-134/02: Miguel Tejada Fernández v Commission                     Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and A. Dal
                of the European Communities ( 1)                           Ferro) — application for annulment of the decision of
                                                                           28 September 2000 by which the authority empowered to
                                                                           conclude contracts of employment rejected the complaint
(Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative                      lodged by the applicant seeking a declaration that the employ-
                 merits — Action for annulment)                            ment relationship which bound her to the Commission was a
                                                                           relationship of indefinite period under a contract as a member
                                                                           of the temporary staff pursuant to Article 2(d) of the Con-
                           (2003/C 135/44)                                 ditions of Employment of other Servants, renewed on more
                                                                           than one occasion with the effects referred to in the last
                                                                           paragraph of Article 8 of those conditions — the Court of First
                    (Language of the case: French)                         Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas,
                                                                           President of the Chamber, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges;
                                                                           H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 1 April 2003, the
                                                                           operative part of which is as follows:
In Case T-134/02: Miguel Tejada Fernández, an official of
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                    1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Woluwé-Saint-Étienne (Belgium), represented by L. Vogel,
                                                                           2.    The parties are to bear their own costs.
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: C. Berar-
dis-Kayser) — application for annulment of the decision of the             (1 ) OJ 2001 C 95.
Commission not to promote the applicant to Grade B 2 in the
2001 promotions procedure — the Court of First Instance