title: Case T-350/03: Action brought on 13 October 2003 by Wirtschaftskammer Kärnten and best connect Ampere Strompool GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 7/36                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            10.1.2004
Subsequently, the applicant submitted to the DAFSE an                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
application for payment of the balance of PTE 991 009 by the
EFS and of the balance of PTE 810 226 by the Portuguese                   —     annul the Commission’s decision of 9 July 2003 concern-
State. The DAFSE certified that request, which the Commission                   ing the restructuring aid which France plans to put into
approved by document No 4242 of 13 March 1989, although                         effect in favour of the Société Nationale Maritime Corse-
it considered the sum of 1 192 162 to be ineligible. On                         Méditerranée;
17 February 1998 the Commission decided, however, to
suspend the contribution.                                                 —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The Portuguese judicial authorities decided to discontinue the
legal actions pending against the applicant, thereby eliminating
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
in the applicant’s view the presumption that it had acted
irregularly. Nevertheless, the Commission adopted the decision
at issue in these proceedings.                                            By the contested decision, the Commission decided that the
                                                                          restructuring aid which France was planning to put into effect
                                                                          in favour of the Société Nationale Maritime Corse-Méditerranée
The contested decision, in the applicant’s view, infringes                was, under certain conditions, compatible with the common
Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 and Council Decision 83/516/                  market. The applicant challenges that decision, asserting that it
EEC since the applicant complied strictly with the conditions             has a direct and individual interest in obtaining its annulment,
laid down for approval of the EFS contribution, thereby                   having regard to its active participation in the formal investi-
acquiring ‘subjective rights attaching specifically to it’.               gation procedure in respect of the aid and its competitive
                                                                          position in the reference market.
The decision also breaches the principle of the protection of
legitimate expectations in so far as the Commission’s approval            In support of its action it relies, first, on alleged failure to state
decision vested in the applicant an entitlement to the contri-            the reasons on which the contested decision is based and,
butions and gave rise to an expectation on its part that it               secondly, on alleged manifest errors of fact and assessment.
would receive them if it carried out the action on the agreed
basis and also because the measure contested herein could
have been put into effect as early as 1989.
Finally, the contested decision constitutes a serious breach of
the principle of proportionality since the applicant incurred
expenses on the assumption that the Commission would fulfil
                                                                          Action brought on 13 October 2003 by Wirtschafts-
its commitments.
                                                                          kammer Kärnten and best connect Ampere Strompool
                                                                          GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
                                                                                (Case T-350/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/67)
Action brought on 13 October 2003 by Corsica Ferries
France against the Commission of the European Com-
                             munities                                                        (Language of the case: German)
                        (Case T-349/03)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                         (2004/C 7/66)                                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 13 October 2003 by Wirtschafts-
                                                                          kammer Kärnten and best connect Ampere Strompool GmbH,
                   (Language of the case: French)                         Klagenfurt (Austria), represented by M. Angerer, lawyer.
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                —     annul Commission Decision COMP/M.2947 — Verbund/
European Communities on 13 October 2003 by Corsica                              EnergieAllianz of 11 June 2003 on the compatibility of a
Ferries France, established in Bastia (France), represented by                  concentration with the common market and the Agree-
S. Rodrigues and C. Scapel, lawyers, with an address for service                ment on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement)
in Luxembourg.                                                                  and order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.1.2004               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 7/37
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             Electric S.A., established in Rueil-Malmaison (France), rep-
                                                                            resented by M. Pittie and A. Winckler, lawyers.
The contested decision by the Commission approves the
concentration of several Austrian undertakings with the under-              The applicant claims that the Court should:
takings E&S GmbH and Verbund Austrian Power Trading AG,
subject to conditions.                                                      —     order the Community to pay it the sum of
                                                                                EUR 1 663 734 716,76;
The applicants claim that E&S GmbH and Verbund Austrian
Power Trading AG are not a full-function joint venture for the              —     such sum to be reduced, if appropriate, by an amount
purpose of Article 3 of the Merger Regulation (1) in conjunction                  not exceeding EUR 1 663 595,74, depending on the
with the Notice on the concept of full-function joint ven-                        outcome of the applications for taxation of the costs in
tures (2). In particular, there is a lack of joint control, sufficient            Cases T-310/01, T-77/02 and T-77/02 R;
independent resources, independent staff management and the
power to procure a substantial proportion of electrical current             —     such sum to be increased by interest accrued since
from outside the parent company’s sphere of influence and to                      4 December 2002 until full payment thereof, at the rate
be allowed to sell it freely on the market. Concerted practices                   of 4 % per year;
directly related to that merger also invalidate the proposal
under Article 2(4) of the Regulation in conjunction with                    —     such sum to be increased by the amount of tax for which
Article 81(1) and (2) EC. The Commission should have come                         Schneider will be liable on its receipt;
to that conclusion when it examined the proposal.
                                                                            —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
The applicants also claim that, in addition to that merger, a
likely ‘group effect’ can be expected to result in further
concerted practices, which would also be invalid under
Article 81(2) EC.                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Moreover, the applicants maintain that the planned project                  The applicant company in this case seeks to obtain compen-
would greatly restrict free competition in the Austrian elec-               sation for the loss which it suffered as a result of the
tricity market and further seal off the Austrian electricity                Commission’s conduct in dealing with Case COMP/M.2283 —
market from that of the European Community, since it would                  Schneider Electric/Legrand, which gave rise to the judgments
further raise the threshold for access to the Austrian electricity          in Case T-310/01 (1) and Case T-77/02 (2).
market. The conditions laid down by the Commission will not
alter that result.
                                                                            It claims in that regard that the Commission, in the course of
                                                                            the proceeding which led to the prohibition decision of
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 on the control of concen-           10 October 2001, made numerous errors most of which were
    trations between undertakings (OJ 1990 L 257, p. 13).                   found established by the Court of First Instance. It also claims
(2) OJ 1998 C 66, p. 1.                                                     that, during the proceeding after that prohibition decision, the
                                                                            Commission made errors, not yet established by the Court,
                                                                            which have increased the damage suffered. In its view, such
                                                                            conduct by the Commission should be regarded as manifestly
                                                                            and seriously exceeding the limits of its discretion to assess the
                                                                            compatibility of a concentration (with the common market).
Action brought on 10 October 2003 by Schneider Electric                     It is a question, in particular, of a lack of fairness by the
S.A. against the Commission of the European Communi-                        Commission in the proceeding which led to the decision of
                                  ties                                      10 October 2001, of infringement of the applicant’s defence
                                                                            rights, of orchestration of the relations between the parties to
                          (Case T-351/03)                                   the concentration, of infringement of the right to be heard by
                                                                            an impartial authority, of its intransigence concerning the
                                                                            detailed rules of the separation imposed on 30 January 2002,
                            (2004/C 7/68)                                   of serious and manifest failure to take into account its exclusive
                                                                            jurisdiction and of the erroneous analysis of the corrective
                    (Language of the case: French)                          measures proposed in November 2002.
                                                                            (1) Schneider v Commission [2002] ECR II-4071.
                                                                            (2) Schneider v Commission [2002] ECR II-4201.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 October 2003 by Schneider


title: Case T-853/16: Action brought on 5 December 2016 — Techniplan v Commission

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/58

         Action brought on 5 December 2016 — Techniplan v Commission
   (Case T-853/16)
   (2017/C 022/78)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Techniplan Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Giuffrida and A. Bonavita, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the European Commission infringed Article 265 TFEU by failing to take a position on the request sent by Techniplan by means of a formal letter of notice;

               —

               order the European Commission to meet the obligation to act provided for in Article 266 TFEU and to pay compensation in respect of the damage for each day on which it fails to meet that obligation, as well as to pay its costs and other disbursements.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant is an engineering company which was awarded a number of projects in African countries (supervision and surveillance of the planning and asphalting works on the Banikoara-Kandi road in Benin, supervision of the works on the Ouallah-Miringoni Road RN32 in the Comoros, supervision of the regular maintenance works on the asphalted roads in Ajouan and Moheli in the Comoros, supervision and monitoring of the regular maintenance works on Grande Comore in the Comoros, monitoring and surveillance of the construction works on the Kinkala-Mindouli National Road No 1 in Congo, supervision and surveillance of the planning and asphalting works on the Bouar-Fambélé road in the Central African Republic, and preparation and monitoring of works in the context of SP NP/HD (support project for the national plans for health development) in the Democratic Republic of Congo).
   The applicant states in this respect that all of those projects were completed and certified by the national authorising officers, and that the corresponding invoices were paid and approved by the bodies of the European Commission, which finances the projects. Nevertheless, entirely unexpectedly, invoices started to be paid only in part. The defendant even applied, again according to the applicant, an arbitrary penalty for the benefit of the European Development Fund, without any specific objection being raised. In particular, the European Commission also intended arbitrarily to use credits claimed by Techniplan in order to offset alleged unspecified debts.
   The defendant sent a formal letter of notice on the basis of Article 265 TFEU in which it called on the European Commission to adopt a measure or take an official position on its request for payment and the real nature of the penalties applied.
   In support of its action, the applicant claims that the competent bodies of the European Commission acted in contravention of the principles of legal certainty and transparency. This situation, Techniplan submits, severely damaged its subjective rights, even though it has a legitimate expectation to know with certainty, at all times and in every situation, what are its EU-law rights and obligations.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 January 2004 in Case T-109/01: Fleuren Compost BV v Commission of the European Communities (Actions for annulment — State aid — Aid granted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands to manure-processing undertakings — Scheme approved by the Commission for a fixed period — Aid granted before or after the approved period)

text:
C 85/24                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             3.4.2004
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               ed by É Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg, against European Parliament (Agents: L. Knudsen
                       of 14 January 2004                                 and D. Moore) — application, first, for annulment of the
                                                                          decision of the secretariat of the Parliamentary Group of the
                                                                          European Socialist Parties, adopted at its meeting on 6 and
in Case T-109/01: Fleuren Compost BV v Commission of                      7 March 2001, to promote two temporary servants to
                the European Communities (1)                              Grade A 3 and, second, for compensation for the harm
                                                                          sustained by the applicant as a result of that promotion - the
(Actions for annulment — State aid — Aid granted by the                   Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili,
Kingdom of the Netherlands to manure-processing undertak-                 President, and P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Palacio
ings — Scheme approved by the Commission for a fixed                      González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
  period — Aid granted before or after the approved period)               judgment on 21 January 2004, in which it:
                          (2004/C 85/45)                                  1.    Annuls the decision of the secretariat of the Parliamentary
                                                                                Group of the European Socialist Parties, adopted at its meeting
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                                on 6 and 7 March 2001, promoting Ms F. and Mr M. to
                                                                                Grade A 3 with effect from 1 March 2001;
In Case T-109/01, Fleuren Compost BV, established in Mid-                 2.    Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
delharnis (Netherlands), represented by J. Stuyck, lawyer, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. di
Bucci and H. van Vliet): Application for the annulment of                 (1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
Commission Decision 2001/521/EC of 13 December 2000 on
the aid scheme implemented by the Kingdom of the Nether-
lands for six manure-processing companies (OJ 2001 L 189,
p. 13), the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended
Composition), composed of: N. J. Forwood, President, J. Pir-
rung, P. Mengozzi, A. W. H. Meij and M. Vilaras, Judges;
J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 14 January 2004, in which it:
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1.    Dismisses the action;
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                                     of 21 January 2004
(1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.                                                in Case T-97/02: Prodromos Mavridis v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Officials — Promotion — Omission from the list of officials
                                                                             promoted to Grade A 5 — Availability of staff reports)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2004/C 85/47)
                       of 21 January 2004
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-328/01: Tony Robinson v European Parlia-
                              ment (1)
(Temporary servant — Promotion to Grade A 3 — Staff of
                                                                          In Case T-97/02: Prodromos Mavridis, an official of the
 the Parliamentary Group of the European Socialist Parties)
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-
                                                                          sels (Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis, lawyer, with an
                          (2004/C 85/46)                                  address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall, V. Joris and
                   (Language of the case: French)                         D. Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of the Com-
                                                                          mission’s decision of 6 April 2001 not to enter the applicant
                                                                          on the list of officials promoted to Grade A 5 in the 2001
                                                                          promotion round, the Court of First Instance, composed of
In Case T-328/01: Tony Robinson, a temporary servant of the               P. Mengozzi, Single Judge; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
European Parliament, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represent-           Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 January 2004, in which it:


title: Case C-259/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2013 — Elena Recinto-Pfingsten v Swiss International Air Lines AG

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2013 — Elena Recinto-Pfingsten v Swiss International Air Lines AG
   (Case C-259/13)
   2013/C 260/34
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elena Recinto-Pfingsten

      Defendant: Swiss International Air Lines AG

      Question referred

   Is the Agreement (1) on air transport between the Swiss Confederation and the European Community of 21 June 1999, as amended by Decision No 2/2010 (2) of the Community/Switzerland Air Transport Committee of 26 November 2010, to be interpreted as meaning that Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, is applicable, in accordance with Article 3(1)(a), also to passengers who embark on a flight to a third country from airports in Switzerland?

      (1)  Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport — Final Act — Joint Declarations — Information relating to the entry into force of the seven Agreements with the Swiss Confederation in the sectors free movement of persons, air and land transport, public procurement, scientific and technological cooperation, mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, and trade in agricultural products (OJ 2002 L 114, p. 73).

      (2)  Decision No 2/2010 of the Joint Community/Switzerland Air Transport Committee set up under the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport of 26 November 2010 replacing the Annex to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (OJ 2010 L 347, p. 54).

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 May 2000 in Case C-56/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Paris): Gascogne Limousin Viandes SA v Office national interprofessionnel des viandes de l'élevage et de l'aviculture (Ofival) (Beef and veal — Premium for early marketing of calves — Grant thereof dependent on average carcase weight of calves slaughtered in each Member State during 1995 — Validity under Article 40(3) of the EC Treaty (now, following amendment, Article 34(2) EC)

text:
12.8.2000             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 233/1
                                                                   I
                                                             (Information)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
Assumption of duties by a new Judge of the Court of                    2.     In addition, as regards the period from 15 July 2000 to
                              Justice                                  6 October 2000, the list on the basis of which the composition
                                                                       of the Sixth Chamber is determined, as set out in point 4 of
                        (2000/C 233/01)                                the decision adopted by the Court at its meeting on 6 October
                                                                       1999 (1), has been amended as follows:
Following her appointment as Judge of the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by decision of the Governments                   Sixth Chamber
of the Member States of the European Communities of 22 June
2000 (1), Ms Ninon Colneric took her oath before the Court                (President: Mr Moitinho de Almeida)
on 14 July 2000.
                                                                          Mr Gulmann, Mr Puissochet, Ms Macken, Mr Schintgen,
                                                                          Mr Skouris, and Ms Colneric, Judges.
(1) OJ L 164 of 5.7.2000, p. 16.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999, p. 1.
Decisions adopted by the Court at its general meeting on
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          11 July 2000
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                        (2000/C 233/02)
                                                                                of 11 May 2000
The Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted
the following decisions at its meeting on 11 July 2000:                in Case C-56/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the Tribunal Administratif de Paris): Gascogne Limousin
                                                                       Viandes SA v Office national interprofessionnel des
Assignment of Judge Colneric                                                 viandes de l’élevage et de l’aviculture (Ofival) (1)
Ms Colneric is assigned to the Second and Sixth Chambers.              (Beef and veal — Premium for early marketing of calves —
                                                                       Grant thereof dependent on average carcase weight of calves
                                                                       slaughtered in each Member State during 1995 — Validity
Composition of the Sixth Chamber                                       under Article 40(3) of the EC Treaty (now, following amend-
                                                                                ment, Article 34(2) EC)
1.    The composition of the Sixth Chamber for the period
from 15 July 2000 to 6 October 2000 has been determined as                                       (2000/C 233/03)
follows:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
   Sixth Chamber
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
   Mr Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber,                                      in the European Court Reports)
   Mr Schintgen, Mr Gulmann, Mr Puissochet, Mr Skouris,                In Case C-56/99: Reference to the Court under Article 177
   Ms Macken and Ms Colneric, Judges.                                  (now Article 234 EC) of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal
 ---pagebreak--- C 233/2                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12.8.2000
Administratif, Paris (France) for a preliminary ruling in the             hed in Chesterfield, United Kingdom, represented by K.P.E.
proceedings pending before that court between Gascogne                    Lasok QC, and P. Harris, Barrister, instructed by A. Mott,
Limousin Viandes SA and Office national interprofessionnel                Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
des viandes de l’élevage et de l’aviculture (Orival) on the               Chambers of Zeyen, Beghin, Feider, Loeff, Claeys and Verbeke,
validity, under Article 40(3) of the EC Treaty (now, following            56-58 Rue Charles Martel — application by the Commission
amendment, Article 34(2) EC), of Article 4i(2) of Regulation              of the European Communities under Article 42 of the ECSC
(EEC) No 805/68 of the Council on the common organization                 Treaty for the recovery of a sum of ECU 252 558, correspon-
of the market in beef and veal, as amended by Council                     ding to an interest rebate which it had granted to Coal Products
Regulation No 2222/96 of 18 November 1996 (OJ 1996                        Ltd under a contract to assist Coal Products Ltd in consuming
L 296, p. 50) and Article 50(1) of Commission Regulation                  coal produced in the Community, plus interest at the rate of
(EEC) No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed                 8 % as from 1 November 1995, and counterclaim by the
rules for the application of the premium schemes provided for             defendant for the payment of a sum of ECU 46 010, plus
in Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the common                       interest as from 3 February 1995 — the Court (First Chamber),
organization of the market in beef and repealing Regulations              composed of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamber, D.A.O.
(EEC) No 1244/82 and (EEC) No 714/89 (OJ 1992 L 391,                      Edward (Rapporteur) and P. Jann, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate
p. 20), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)                          General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
No 2311/96 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1996 L 313, p. 9) —                     a judgment on 16 May 2000, in which it:
the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed of: J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),             1.   Dismisses the application by the Commission of the European
C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and Mrs F. Macken, Judges, Advo-                  Communities and the counterclaim by Coal Products Ltd;
cate General: G. Cosmas, Registrar: H. A. Rühl, Principal Admi-
nistrator for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 May
                                                                          2.   Orders the Commission of the European Communities and Coal
2000, in which it has ruled:
                                                                               Products Ltd to bear their own costs.
Examination of the question submitted has disclosed no factor likely
to affect the validity of Article 4i(2) of Regulation No 805/68 of        (1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
the Council on the common organization of the market in beef
and veal, as amended by Council Regulation No 2222/96 of
18 November 1996 and Article 50(1) of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed
rules for the application of the premium schemes provided for in
Regulation No 805/68 and repealing Regulations (EEC)
No 1244/82 and (EEC) No 714/89, as amended by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2311/96 of 2 December 1996.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
                                                                                of 16 May 2000
                                                                          in Case C-78/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling by
                                                                          the House of Lords): Shirley Preston and Others v
                                                                          Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others and
                                                                              Dorothy Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank plc (1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                          (Social policy — Men and women — Equal pay — Members-
                          (First Chamber)                                 hip of an occupational pension scheme — Part-time workers
                                                                          — Exclusion — National procedural rules — Principle of
                          of 16 May 2000                                             effectiveness — Principle of equivalence)
in Case C-274/97: Commission of the European Communi-                                             (2000/C 233/05)
                    ties v Coal Products Ltd (1)
             (Arbitration clause — Interest rebate)                                         (Language of the case: English)
                          (2000/C 233/04)
                                                                          In Case C-78/98 — reference by the House of Lords for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                          Article 234 EC) in the case of Shirley Preston and Others v
                    (Language of the case: English)                       Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others and
                                                                          Dorothy Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank plc on the
In Case C-274/97: Commission of the European Communities                  interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to
(Agents: P. Oliver and B. Doherty) v Coal Products Ltd, establis-         120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2005 in Case T-384/03 Reti Televisive Italiane SpA (RTI) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No requirement to adjudicate)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/40

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 27 June 2005
   in Case T-384/03 Reti Televisive Italiane SpA (RTI) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No requirement to adjudicate)
   (2005/C 217/89)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-384/03: Reti Televisive Italiane SpA (RTI), established in Rome (Italy), represented by G. Folridia and R. Floridia, lawyers, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto and M. Luce Capostagno), the other party to the proceedings before the OHIM Board of Appeal being Microarea SpA, established in Genoa (Italy), represented by E. Itri, lawyer — action against the decision of 11 September 2003 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R/894/2002-1) in relation to an opposition procedure between Reti Televisive Italiane and Microaerea SpA — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, J. Azizi and E. Cremona, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 27 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application.

               2.

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 21 of 24.1.2004


title: Notice of an Open competition

text:
C 53/16        EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                 25.2.2000
                                                              III
                                                            (Notices)
                                           COURT OF JUSTICE
                                        NOTICE OF AN OPEN COMPETITION
                                                      (2000/C 53/06)
        The Court of Justice of the European Communities will be publishing in the Official Journal of the European
        Communities No C 53 A of 25 February 2000 the following Notice of Open competition:
        French edition:
        CJ/LA/2 (interpreters of French mother-tongue)
        To obtain a copy of this Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of Justice of
        the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
        Closing date for application: 25 March 2000.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 3 June 1997 in Case T-60/96: Merck & Co. Inc. and Others, v. Commission of the European Communities (Free Movement of goods - Transitional measures - Act of accession - Protective measures - Pharmaceutical products - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)

text:
No C 252/32           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16 . 8 . 97
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
          (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition )                                             of 9 June 1997
                                                                    in Case T-9/97: Elf Atochem SA v. Commission of the
                         of 3 June 1997
                                                                                European Communities (')
in Case T-60/96: Merck & Co. Inc. and Others, v.                    (Competition        —       Administrative   procedure        —
        Commission of the European Communities (')                  Investigations — Drawing-up of reports following an
(Free Movement of goods — Transitional measures — Act               investigation — Actions for annulment of measures —
of accession — Protective measures — Pharmaceutical                             Actionable measures — Inadmissibility)
    products — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)                                       ( 97/C 252/71 )
                         ( 97/C 252/70 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: English)                     In Case T-9/97: Elf Atochem SA, established at Puteaux
                                                                    ( France ), represented by Xavier de Roux, of the Paris Bar,
                                                                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                    Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, v.
In Case , T-60/96 : Merck & Co. Inc., established at                Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
Whitehouse Station, New Jersey (United States of                    Wouter Wils ) — application for annulment of the reports
America ), NV Organon, established at Oss (Netherlands ),           and annexes thereto drawn up by the Commission on 18 ,
Glaxo Wellcome pic, established at Greenford (United                19 and 20 November 1996 following an investigation
Kingdom ), represented by Romano Subiotto, Solicitor, and           carried out pursuant to Article 14 (2 ) of Council
Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, with an address for                Regulation No 17, First regulation implementing
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger &                 Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, of 6 February 1962 ( OJ,
Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich, against Commission of the                     English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87) at the
European Communities ( Agents : Richard Wainwright and              applicant's registered office in the context of an inquiry
Fernando Castillo de la Torre ) — application for                   concerning the existence of certain agreements or
annulment of Commission Decisions C(95)3316 final/1 ,               concerted practices contrary to Article 85 ( 1 ) of the Treaty
C(95)3316 final/2 and C(95)3316 def./2, K(95)3316                   in the olefins and polyolefins sector ( Case No IV/E-2/
endg./3 , K(95)3316 endg./4, K(95)3316 endelig. udg./5 ,            35.765 ) — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber),
C(95)3316 final/6 and C(95)3316 final/7 of 20 December              composed of: A. Saggio, President; V. Tiili and R. M.
1995 refusing the authorization sought, respectively, by            Moura-Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
France, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Ireland and             on 9 June 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
the United Kingdom to take protective measures with
regard to pharmaceutical products coming from Spain —
the Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber, Extended               1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
Composition), composed of R. García-Valdecasas,
President, and V. Tiili, J. Azizi, R. M. Moura Ramos and            2 . The applicant is ordered to pay all the costs.
M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
3 June 1997, the operative part of which is as follows :            o OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997.
1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
2 . The applicants are ordered jointly and severally to pay                    OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     the costs.
                                                                                of 19 June 1997
                                                                    in Case T-159/97 R: Luis Manuel Chaves Fonseca Ferrão
3 . The applications to intervene need not be considered.           v. Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade
                                                                                marks and designs )
                                                                     (Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade
4 . The Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure e.V. ,            marks and designs) — Decision of the President of the
     the Asociación de Exportadores Españoles de                     Office relating to the organization of Boards of Appeal —
     Productos Farmacéuticos and the Vereniging Euro                                  Periculum in mora — None )
     Specialités are to bear their own costs.                                                 ( 97/C 252/72 )
(') OJ No C 197, 6 . 7. 1996 .                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    In Case T-159/97: Luis Manuel Chaves Fonseca Ferrão, a
                                                                    member of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for the


title: Case T-121/00: Action brought on 3 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market.

text:
C 192/22              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8.7.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Contested        decision     Refusal of registration by the
                                                                        before the Board of           examiner
Trademark concerned:          Three dimensional trademark in            Appeal:
                              the form of tablets — Application
                              No 954453                                 Grounds for appeal:           Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                                                                                Regulation 40/94.
Product or Service:           Products in Class 3 of the Nice
                              Agreement (in particular, washing
                              and bleaching preparations for
                              laundry use; preparations for the
                              washing of dishes, soaps)
Contested        decision     Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of           examiner                                  Action brought on 3 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble
Appeal:                                                                 Company against the Office for Harmonization in the
                                                                                Internal Market.
Grounds for appeal:           Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                              Regulation 40/94.
                                                                                (Case T-121/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 192/42)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Action brought on 3 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble
Company against the Office for Harmonization in the                     An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                        Internal Market                                 Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 3 May 2000 by The Procter &
                        (Case T-120/00)                                 Gamble Company, represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and
                                                                        G. Kuipers of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, The Hague,
                        (2000/C 192/41)                                 Netherlands.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        — annul Decision R529/1999-1 of the First Board of Appeal
An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal              of the OHIM of 29 February 2000, in so far as it finds that
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                the Mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in
European Communities on 3 May 2000 by The Procter &                         Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and
Gamble Company, represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and
G. Kuipers of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, The Hague,                 — order the OHIM to pay the costs.
Netherlands.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Pleas in law and main arguments
— annul Decision R520/1999-1 of the First Board of Appeal               Trademark concerned:          Three dimensional trademark in
    of the OHIM of 29 February 2000, in so far as it finds that                                       the form of tablets Application
    the Mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in                                          No 960427
    Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and
                                                                        Product or Service:           Products in Class 3 of the Nice
— order the OHIM to pay the costs.                                                                    Agreement (in particular, washing
                                                                                and bleaching preparations for
                                                                                laundry use; preparations for the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                       washing of dishes, soaps)
Trademark concerned:          Three dimensional trademark in            Contested        decision     Refusal of registration by the
                              the form of tablets — Application         before the Board of           examiner
                              No 954479                                 Appeal:
Product or Service:           Products in Class 3 of the Nice           Grounds for appeal:           Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                              Agreement (in particular, washing                                       Regulation 40/94.
                              and bleaching preparations for
                              laundry use; preparations for the
                              washing of dishes, soaps)


title: Case C-578/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 17 November 2016 — C. K., H. F., A. S. v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 17 November 2016 — C. K., H. F., A. S. v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-578/16)
   (2017/C 022/24)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: C. K., H. F., A. S.

      Respondent: Republic of Slovenia

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the interpretation of the rules relating to the application of the discretionary clause under Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, having regard to the nature of that provision, ultimately a matter for the courts and tribunals of the Member State, and do those rules release the courts and tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy from the obligation to refer the case to the Court of Justice under the third paragraph of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?
               In the alternative, if the answer to the above question is in the negative:

               2.

               Is the assessment of circumstances under Article 3(2) of the Dublin III Regulation (in a case such as the one forming the subject matter of the present reference for a preliminary ruling) sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 4 and Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 33 of the Geneva Convention?
               and, in connection with that question:

               3.

               Does it follow from the interpretation of Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation that the application of the discretionary clause by the Member State is mandatory for the purposes of ensuring effective protection against an infringement of the rights under Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in cases such as the one forming the subject matter of the present reference for a preliminary ruling, and that such application prohibits the transfer of the applicant for international protection to a competent Member State which has accepted its competence in accordance with that regulation?
               If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative:

               4.

               Can the discretionary clause under Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation be used as a basis permitting an applicant for international protection, or another person, in a transfer procedure under that regulation, to make a claim that that provision should be applied, which the competent authorities and courts and tribunals of the Member State must assess, or are those administrative authorities and courts and tribunals required to establish the circumstances cited of their own motion?


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 June 2002 in Case C-92/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien): Hospital Ingenieure Krankenhaustechnik Planungs-GmbH (HI) v Stadt Wien (Public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Procedure for the award of public service contracts — Directive 89/665/EEC — Scope — Decision to withdraw an invitation to tender — Judicial review — Scope)

text:
C 191/4                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           10.8.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                           of 25 June 2002
                                                                                of 18 June 2002
in Case C-66/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
             the Tribunale di Parma): Dante Bigi (1)                         in Case C-92/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien): Hospital
                                                                             Ingenieure Krankenhaustechnik Planungs-GmbH (HI) v
                                                                                Stadt Wien (1)
(Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Protection of geographical
indications and designations of origin of agricultural prod-
ucts and foodstuffs — Article 13 — System of derogations                     (Public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Pro-
                               — Scope)                                      cedure for the award of public service contracts — Directive
                                                                             89/665/EEC — Scope — Decision to withdraw an invitation
                                                                                to tender — Judicial review — Scope)
                           (2002/C 191/05)
                                                                                (2002/C 191/06)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                                             (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                           in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-92/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                             by the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien (Austria) for a
In Case C-66/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                 preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
by the Tribunale di Parma (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the            between Hospital Ingenieure Krankenhaustechnik Planungs-
criminal proceedings before that court against Dante Bigi,                   GmbH (HI) and Stadt Wien, on the interpretation of
third party: Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano,                    Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 Decem-
on the interpretation of Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC)              ber 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical                 administrative provisions relating to the application of review
indications and designations of origin for agricultural products             procedures to the award of public supply and public works
and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1), as amended by Council                  contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by Council
Regulation (EC) No 535/97 of 17 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 83,                    Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordi-
p. 3), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,                     nation of procedures for the award of public service contracts
President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr                   (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) and of Directive 92/50 in the version
(Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),                        thereof resulting from European Parliament and Council
J.-P. Puissochet, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;               Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 amending Directives
P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the               92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning the coordi-
Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 June 2002, in which it                 nation of procedures for the award of public service contracts,
has ruled:                                                                   public supply contracts and public works contracts respectively
                                                                             (OJ 1997 L 328, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
                                                                             of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,
On a proper construction of Article 13(2) of Council Regulation              J.-P. Puissochet, V. Skouris (Rapporteur), and J.N. Cunha
(EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of                        Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,
geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural         Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 June 2002, in which it
products and foodstuffs, as amended by Council Regulation (EC)               has ruled:
No 535/97 of 17 March 1997, products are not covered by the
system of derogations set up by Article 13(2) where they originate in        1.    Article 1(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December
the State of the protected designation of origin the protection of which           1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
under Article 13(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 2081/92, as                        administrative provisions relating to the application of review
amended, is at issue and they do not meet the product specification                procedures to the award of public supply and public works
for that protected designation of origin.                                          contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of
                                                                                18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for
                                                                                the award of public service contracts, requires the decision of the
                                                                                contracting authority to withdraw the invitation to tender for a
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.                                                         public service contract to be open to a review procedure, and to
                                                                                be capable of being annulled where appropriate, on the ground
                                                                                that it has infringed Community law on public contracts or
                                                                                national rules implementing that law.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.8.2002                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 191/5
2.    Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 92/50, precludes              1.    Dismisses the action;
      national legislation from limiting review of the legality of the
      withdrawal of an invitation to tender to mere examination of
                                                                              2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
      whether it was arbitrary.
3.    Determination of the time to be taken into consideration for
      assessing the legality of the decision by the contracting authority     (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
      to withdraw an invitation to tender is a matter for national
      law, provided that the relevant national rules are not less
      favourable than those governing similar domestic actions and
      that they do not make it practically impossible or excessively
      difficult to exercise rights conferred by Community law.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 27 June 2002
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            of 18 June 2002                                   in Case C-258/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
in Case C-242/00: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
           mission of the European Communities (1)                            (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/676/EEC —
                                                                              Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates
                                                                              from agricultural sources — Identification of waters affected
(State aid — Proposed aid — Commission decision holding                              by pollution — Designation of vulnerable zones)
aid to be compatible with the common market — Measure
not having an adverse effect — Regional aid — Definition
                           of eligible regions)                                                         (2002/C 191/08)
                            (2002/C 191/07)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: German)
                                                                              (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-258/00, Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-242/00, Federal Republic of Germany (Agent:                         (Agent: M. Nolin) v French Republic (Agent: J.-F. Dobelle and
W.-D. Plessing, assisted by R. M. Bierwagen) v Commission of                  D. Colas, and, subsequently, G. de Bergues and D. Colas),
the European Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and                         supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde):
J. Macdonald Flett): Application for the annulment of Com-                    Application for a declaration that, by failing to take the
mission Decision 2001/272/EC of 14 March 2000 on the                          appropriate steps to identify waters affected by pollution
redefinition of assisted areas under the joint Federal Govern-                and, consequently, to designate the corresponding vulnerable
ment/Länder scheme for improving regional economic struc-                     zones, in accordance with Article 3 of and Annex I to Council
tures in Germany for the period 1 January 2000 to 31 Decem-                   Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the
ber 2003 — West Germany and Berlin (OJ 2001 L 97, p. 27),                     protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,                  agricultural sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1), the French Republic
P. Jann, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers),                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),                     Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken (Rapporteur),
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and C.W.A. Timmer-                      President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann,
mans, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal               R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                     Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
18 June 2002, in which it has ruled:                                          has given a judgment on 27 June 2002, in which it:


title: Case C-11/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 18 January 2007 — Hans Eckelkamp and Others v Belgian State

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 18 January 2007 — Hans Eckelkamp and Others v Belgian State
   (Case C-11/07)
   (2007/C 56/39)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hof van Beroep te Gent
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Hans Eckelkamp and Others

      Respondent: Belgian State
   Question referred
   Do Article 12 EC, in conjunction with Articles 17 EC and 18 EC, and Article 56 EC, in conjunction with Article 57 EC, preclude national rules of a Member State under which, in the context of the acquisition, through inheritance, of immovable property situate in a Member State (the State in which the property is situate), that State imposes a tax on the value of the immovable property situate in that State, in respect of which that State allows a deduction corresponding to the value of charges on that immovable property (such as debts secured by the right conferred on a creditor to take out a mortgage against that immovable property) if the testator, at the time of his demise, was resident in the State in which the property is situate, but not if the testator, at the time of his demise, was living in a different Member State (the State of residence)?


title: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 December 2000 in Case C-39/00 P: Services pour le Groupement d'Acquisitions SARL (SGA) v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Complaint — Action for declaration of failure to act, for annulment and for compensation — Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

text:
C 200/26                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 6 December 2000
                                                                                of 13 December 2000
in Case C-252/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Conseil Mixte d’Appel d’Expression Française de                        in Case C-39/00 P: Services pour le Groupement d’Acquis-
l’Ordre des Médecins Vétérinaires): in the case of Dr Jean-                itions SARL (SGA) v Commission of the European Com-
                      Michel Vandeweerd (1)                                                            munities (1)
                                                                           (Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Complaint
    (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)                 — Action for declaration of failure to act, for annulment
                                                                           and for compensation — Appeal in part clearly inadmissible
                                                                                and in part clearly unfounded)
                          (2001/C 200/45)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/46)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                             (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-39/00 P: Services pour le Groupement d’Acquisitions
                                                                           SARL (SGA), in judicial liquidation, a company incorporated
                                                                           under French law, established in Istres, France, represented by
In Case C-252/00: reference to the Court under Article 234                 J.C. Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
EC from the Conseil Mixte d’Appel d’Expression Française de                Luxembourg at the Chambers of P. Schiltz, 4 Rue Béatrix de
l’Ordre des Médecins Véterinaires (French language Joint                   Bourbon — application for an appeal against the judgment of
Appeal Board of the Association of Veterinary Surgeons,                    the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First
Belgium), a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                  Chamber) of 13 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-189/95, T-
before that court in the case of Dr Jean-Michel Vandeweerd —               39/96 and T-123/96 SGA v Commission [1999] ECR II-3587,
on the interpretation of Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now                  seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
Article 81 EC) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                   proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola,               represented by G. Marenco, Principal Legal Adviser, and
M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Presidents of Chambers,                        F. Siredey-Garnier — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen,         of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and              P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric,
C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;                  Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass,
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 6 December 2000,                 Registrar, has given an Order on 13 December 2000, in which
in which it has ruled:                                                     it:
                                                                           1.    Dismisses the appeal;
The question submitted for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil Mixte
d’Appel d’Expression Française de l’Ordre des Médecins Véterinaires,
by decision of 10 June 2000, is inadmissible.                              2.    Orders Services pour le Groupement d’Acquisitions SARL
                                                                                (SGA) to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 22 November 1995 in Case C-443/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Elengtiko Sinedrio): Ioannis Vougioukas v. Idrima Koinonikon Asphalisseon (IKA) (Interpretation and validity of Article 4 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and interpretation of Articles 48 and 51 of the Treaty - Special schemes for civil servants - Greek doctor employed in a German hospital)

text:
No C 31 /2              EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                        3 . 2 . 96
interpretation of Articles 67 and 71 of the EC Treaty — the            compulsory scheme, established by law as an optional
Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,                scheme and operating according to the principle of
D. A. O. Edward and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ),              capitalization in keeping with the rules laid down by the
G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de                  authorities in particular with regard to conditions for
Almeida ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann , J. L. Murray, P. Jann,            membership, contributions and benefits, is an undertaking
FL Ragnemalm and L. Sevòn, Judges; Advocate General ;                  within the meaning of Article 85 et seq . of the EC
M. B. Elmer, Registrar; D. Louterman-Hubeau , Principal                Treaty.
Administrator, gave a judgment on 14 November 1995 , the
operative part of which is as follows :                                (') O J No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994 .
It is not compatible with Articles 59 and 67 ofthe EC Treaty
for a Member State to make the grant ofa housing benefit, in
particular an interest rate subsidy, subject to the
requirement that the loans intended to finance the
construction, acquisition or improvement of the housing                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
which is to benefit from the subsidy have been obtained                                    of 22 November 1995
from a credit institution approved in that Member State,
which implies that it must be established there.                       in Case C-443/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the Elengtiko Sinedrio ): Ioannis Vougioukas v. Idrima
                                                                                Koinonikon Asphalisseon ( IKA ) (')
(') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
                                                                       (Interpretation and validity of Article 4 (4) of Regulation
                                                                       (EEC) No 1408/71 and interpretation ofArticles 48 and SI
                                                                       of the Treaty — Special schemes for civil servants — Greek
                                                                                doctor employed in a German hospital)
                                                                                ( 96/C 3 1 /04
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                     of 16 November 1995                                              (Language of the case: Greek)
in Case C-244/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the French Conseil d'Etat ): Fédération Française des                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Sociétés d'Assurance v. Ministry of Agriculture and                             published in the European Court Reports)
                             Fisheries (')
                                                                       In Case C-443/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
(Article 85 et seq. of the EC Treaty — Concept of an
 'undertaking' — Organization managing an optional                     of the EC Treaty from the Elengtiko Sinedrio ( Court of
            supplementary social security scheme)                      Auditors ) ( Greece ) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                       proceedings pending before that court between Ioannis
                            ( 96/C 31 /03 )                           Vougioukas and Idrima Koinonikon Asphalisseon ( IKA ) —
                                                                       on the interpretation and validity of Article 4 ( 4 ) of Council
               (Language of the case: French)                          Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
                                                                       application of social security schemes to employed persons,
                                                                       to self-employed persons and to members of their families
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                       moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 ( OJ
                                                                       1983 No L 230, p. 6 ) — the Court, composed of G. C.
In Case C-244/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177            Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.
of the EC Treaty by the French Conseil d'Etat for a                    Edward and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), F. A.
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that              Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn,
court between Federation Française des Sociétés                        C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and
d'Assurance, Societe Paternelle-Vie, Union des Assurances              L. Sevòn, Judges ; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
de Paris-Vie, Caisse d'Assurance et de Prévoyance Mutuelle             General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
des Agriculteurs on the one hand, and Ministry of                      given a judgment on 22 November 1995 , in which it
Agriculture and Fisheries on the other, on the interpretation          rules :
of Article 85 et seq . of the EC Treaty — the Court, composed
of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris and             1 . The term 'civil servants ' in Article 4 (4) of Council
D. A. O. Edward ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini,                 Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn,                application of social security schemes to employed
C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and                        persons, to self-employed persons and to members of
L. Sevòn, Judges; Advocate General : G. Tesauro, Registrar:                their families moving within the Community, as
H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
given a judgment on 16 November 1995 , the operative part                  No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 , does not refer only to civil
of which is as follows :
                                                                           servants covered by the derogation provided for in
                                                                           Article 48 (4) of the Treaty, as interpreted by the Court,
A non-profit-making organization which manages an                          but to all civil servants employed by a public authority
old-age insurance scheme intended to supplement a basic                    and persons treated as such.
 ---pagebreak--- 3 . 2 . 96               EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 31 /3
2 . In order to be regarded as 'special' within the meaning of           1 . Article 12 (h) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84
     Article 4 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 , it is                    of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the
     sufficient — without there being any need to take other                 application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of
     factors into consideration — that the social security                   Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk
     scheme in question is different from the general social                 products sector must be interpreted as meaning that
     security scheme applicable to employed persons in the                   milk deliveries made by an agricultural holding to the
      Member State concerned and that all, or certain                        pupils and boarders of a school against payment of the
      categories of, civil servants are directly subject to it, or           price of the milk indirectly by inclusion in the boarding
      that it refers to a social security scheme for civil servants          fees must be described as direct sale within the meaning
     already in force in that Member State.                                  of that provision where the agricultural holding, the
                                                                             school and the boarding facilities are run by the same
3 . Articles 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted                  institution .
     as precluding refusal to take into account, for the
     acquisition of the right to a pension, periods of                   2 . Consideration of Article 4 (1 ) of Commission
      employment completed by a person subject to a special                  Regulation (EEC) No 1371 /84 of 16 May 1984 laying
      scheme for civil servants or persons treated as such, such             down detailed rules for the application of the additional
      as an IKA staff doctor, in public hospitals in another                 levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No
      Member State, where the relevant national legislation                  804/68 has disclosed no factor ofsuch a kind as to affect
      allows such periods to be taken into account if they have              its validity in so far as it does not allow for account to be
      been completed in comparable establishments within                     taken of changes in the financial needs of the producer
      that State.                                                            which are linked to the holding after expiry of the
                                                                             time-limit for registration for the purpose of obtaining a
(') OJ No C 18 , 21 . 1 . 1994 .                                             reference quantity for direct sales.
                                                                         3 . Article 4(1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 1371 /84, cited
                                                                             above, must be interpreted as meaning that a producer
                                                                             who has not complied with the time-limit laid down by
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       that provision may be allocated a reference quantity in
                          ( Second Chamber )                                 application of the principle of restoration to the status
                       of 23 November 1995
                                                                             quo ante under the rules of national law, provided,
                                                                             however, that there is no discrimination in applying the
in Case C-285/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                   national rule in comparison with the way in which cases
the Finanzgericht Miinchen ): Dominikanerinnen-Kloster                       of non-compliance with national time-limits are treated
         AltenHohenau v. Hauptzollamt Rosenheim ( l )                        and that it is not applied in a way that would undermine
(Additional levy on milk — Reference quantity for direct                     the purposes of the milk quota scheme.
                                   sales)
                                                                         (') OJ No C 175 , 26 . 6 . 1993 .
                              ( 96/C 31 /05 )
                  (Language of the case: German)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     published in the Reports of Cases before the Court)                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
In Case C-285/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                                of 23 November 1995
of the EEC Treaty from the Finanzgericht Miinchen
 ( Finance Court, Munich ) for a preliminary ruling in the               in Case C-394/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
 proceedings pending before that court between                           the Landessozialgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz): Gabriel
 Dominikanerinnen-Kloster Altenhohenau v. Hauptzollamt                            Alonso-Perez v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit ( 1 )
 Rosenheim — on the interpretation of Article 12 ( h ) of                 (Social security for workers moving within the Community
 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984                    — Family benefits — Member State limiting the retroactive
 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred                  effect of an application for family benefits)
 to in Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk
 and milk products sector ( OJ 1984 , No L 90, p. 13 ), and on                                       ( 96/C 31 /06 )
 the interpretation and validity, in particular in the light of
 the general principles of Community law, of Article 4 ( 1 ) of                          (Language of the case: German)
  Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1371 /84 of 16 May
  1984 laying down detailed rules for the application of the              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
  additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC )            published in the Reports of Cases before the Court)
 No 804/68 ( OJ 1 984, No L 1 32 , p. 1 1 ) — the Court ( Second
  Chamber ), composed of G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ), President              In Case C-394/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
  of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and F. A. Schockweiler,                   of the EEC Treaty from the Landessozialgericht ( Higher
 Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,                    Social Court) Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz ( Germany), for a
  Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 23 November 1995 ,                 preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
  in which it ruled :                                                     court between Gabriel Alonso-Perez and Bundesanstalt fur


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 10 February 1999 in Case T-211/98 R Claude Willeme v Commission of the European Communities (Procedure for interim relief - Article 88 of the Staff Regulations - Prima facie case No urgency)

text:
C 174/6                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    19.6.1999
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               — order the Commission to pay the cossts of the action,
                              INSTANCE                                         including those of the applicant.
                        of 10 February 1999
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
in Case T-211/98 R Claude Willeme v Commission of the
                      European Communities                                 The pleas and main arguments are similar to those invoked in
                                                                           Case T-148/98.
(Procedure for interim relief — Article 88 of the Staff
          Regulations — Prima facie case No urgency)
                            (1999/C 174/13)
                     (Language of the case: French)                        Action brought on 15 December 1998 by Charlotte
                                                                           Rudolph against Commission of the European Communi-
In Case T-211/98 R Claude Willeme, an official of the                                                     ties
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-
sels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of                                        (Case T-197/98)
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the offices of the Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi                                           (1999/C 174/15)
Valsesia and Julian Currall) — application for suspension of
the operation of the decision of 16 December 1998 by which
the appointing authority suspended the applicant from his                                     (Language of the case: French)
duties with immediate effect and withheld a sum equal to one
half of his basic salary from his remuneration — the President             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
of the Court of First Instance has made an order on 10 February            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
1999 in which he:                                                          European Communities on 15 December 1998 by Charlotte
                                                                           Rudolph, residing in Brussels, represented by Olivier Eben, of
1. Dismisses the application for interim relief;                           the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                           the Chambers of Jean Tonnar, 29 Rue du Fossé, Esch-sur-
2. Reserves the costs.                                                     Alzette.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           — Declare that the medical examination which the applicant
                                                                               underwent for recruitment purposes on 6 February 1995
                                                                               cannot be regarded as null and void;
Action brought on 6 October 1998 by South Wales
Small Mines Association against the Commission of the                      — Declare that Mrs Rudolph is not obliged to undergo a
                      European Communities                                     further medical examination for recruitment purposes in
                                                                               order to verify her fitness for work;
                            (Case T-162/98)
                                                                           — Annul the decision of the European Commission of
                                                                               7 December 1998, Article 1 of which annulled the
                            (1999/C 174/14)                                    appointing authority’s decisions of 3 July 1995 and of
                                                                               14 December 1995 pursuant to which Mrs Rudolph was
                                                                               appointed first as a probationary official and then as an
                    (Language of the case: English)                            official and Article 2 of which terminated Mrs Rudolph’s
                                                                               employment as from 1 February 1999;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 — Declare that Mrs Rudolph must be reinstated and that the
European Communities on 6 October 1998 by South Wales                          arrears of her salary must be paid to her, together with
Small Mines Association, represented by T. Llewellyn Jones,                    interest at the rate of 10% as from the date of cessation of
Thomas Sharpe QC and Mark Brealey with an address for                          payment of her salary;
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor Gillen, 13,
rue Aldringen.                                                             — Order the Commission to pay Mrs Rudolph the sum of
                                                                               ECU 100 000 in respect of misuse of powers and
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    non-material damage;
— annul the Commission decision of 30 July 1998 rejecting                  — So far as necessary, annul:
     a complaint made by the applicant on 5 June 1990
     relating, inter alia, to systematic price discrimination of the           — the Commission decision dated 17 November 1997,
     CEGB and its successor corporations, National Power and                        sent to the applicant on 12 January 1998 and received
     PowerGen contrary to Article 4(b) ECSC; and                                    by her on 14 January 1998;