title: Information

text:
No C 31 /8             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        3 . 2 . 96
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                    following two supplementary questions, received at the
                       ( Second Chamber)                               Court Registry on 9 November 1995 :
                    of 23 November 1995
in Case C-10/95 P: Asociación Española de Empresas de la               '2 . If the answer to Question 1 is that the supplier's taxable
        Carne v. Council of the European Union ( J )                          amount is the price determined by the supply
(Agriculture — Financing ofhealth inspections and controls                    agreement, then, on the proper construction of
offresh meat andpoultrymeat — Action for annulment ofa                        Article 2 (1 ), is the stated amount paid by the supplier
directive — Natural or legal persons — Acts concerning                        to the dealer consideration for which any supply of
them directly and individually — Appeal clearly                               goods or services is effectedf; and
                             unfounded)
                           ( 96/C 31 / 15 )
                                                                       3.     Ifthe answer to Question 2 is "yes then, on the proper
                                                                              construction of Article 17 (2) (a), are such goods or
               (Language of the case: Spanish)                                services supplied by the dealer to the supplier or to some
                                                                              other person ?'.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                      ( 1 ) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 4 .
In Case C-10/95 P: Asociacion Espanola de Empresas de la
Carne ( Asocarne ), an association governed by Spanish law,
based in Madrid, represented by Paloma Llaneza Gonzalez
of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 1 1 rue
Goethe , appellant — appeal against the order of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities ( First
Chamber ) of 20 October 1994 in Case T-99/94 Asocarne v.
Council [ 1994] ECR 11-871 seeking to have that order set              Appeal brought on 17 November 1995 by Tierce Ladbroke
aside, the other party to the proceedings being the Council            SA against the judgment delivered on 18 September 1995 by
of the European Union ( Agents : Ramon Torrent and Ignacio             the First Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of
Dfez Parra ) — the Court ( Second Chamber ), composed of               First Instance of the European Communities in Case
G. Hirsch, President ( of the Chamber ), G. F. Mancini                 T-471/93 (^ between Tierce Ladbroke SA and the
( Rapporteur ) and F. A. Schockweiler, Judges; M. N.                   Commission of the European Communities, supported by
Fennelly, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar has made                                        the French Republic
an order on 23 November 1995 , in which it:                                                      ( Case C-353/95 P
                                                                                ( 96/C 31 / 17 )
1 . dismisses the appeal;
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 18 September
2 . orders the appellant to pay the costs.                             1995 by the First Chamber ( extended composition ) of the
                                                                       Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                       Case T-471 /93 between Tierce Ladbroke SA and the
(') OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 .                                         Commission of the European Communities, supported by
                                                                       the French Republic, was brought before the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities on 17 November
                                                                        1995 by Tierce Ladbroke SA, represented by Jeremy Lever,
                                                                       QC, and Christopher Vajda , Barristers of the Bar of England
                                                                       and Wales, and Stephen Kon, Solicitor, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Winandy & Err,
                                                                       60, avenue Gaston Diderich .
                            Information
                             96/C 31 / 1 6
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        1 . allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the Court
Reference for a preliminary ruling in Case C-40/95 (') was                    of First Instance in Case T-471 /93 ;
made by the VAT and Duties Tribunal , London, by decision
of that court of 1 February 1995 , in the case of Conoco Ltd
against Commissioners of Customs and Excise . By direction             2.     annul    the   contested      Decision  contained   in    the
of 1 November 1995 , the said court has referred the                          Commission's letter of 18 January 1993 , and


title: Case C-162/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundeskommunikationssenat (Austria) lodged on 4 April 2011 — Publikumsrat des Österreichischen Rundfunks v Österreichischer Rundfunk

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundeskommunikationssenat (Austria) lodged on 4 April 2011 — Publikumsrat des Österreichischen Rundfunks v Österreichischer Rundfunk
   (Case C-162/11)
   2011/C 179/20
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundeskommunikationssenat

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Publikumsrat des Österreichischen Rundfunks

      Defendant: Österreichischer Rundfunk

      Question referred

   Are Articles 1(c), 10, 11 and 18(3) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 (1) on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 June 1997 amending Directive 89/552 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that announcements of any kind made by a television broadcaster in its programmes and broadcasts and relating to its own (free-to-air) programmes and broadcasts are covered by the term ‘television advertising’ (Article 1(c)), and are, inter alia, the provisions on separation between editorial content and advertising and the recognisable nature of advertising in Article 10 and on the insertion of advertising in Article 11 consequently also applicable to such announcements?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23.

      (2)  OJ 1989 L 202, p. 60.


title: Action brought on 14 July 1998 by Società Camar s.r.l. and Società Tico s.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-117/98)

text:
C 327/28              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.10.98
     Qualifications of General and Specialist Doctors in the         nature and effects of the rules applicable to specialist
     United Kingdom misrepresents the rules applicable to            medical practitioners in the United Kingdom from the
     specialist medical practitioners in the United Kingdom          persons subject to their jurisdiction in order to deprive
     in order not to promote the supply of specialist                them of their substance and thereby to sanction the illegal
     medical services by a category of medical practitioners         transfer of the status of Community Medical Specialist'
     who are qualified by law to practise the regulated              from one category of medical practitioners Ð those who
     medical profession as licensed specialist medical               are qualified by law to practise the regulated medical
     practitioners and who have completed the prescribed             profession as licensed specialist medical practitioners
     specialist medical training at Community level and              recognised at Community level Ð to another category of
     national level and thereby offer the minimum                    medical practitioners Ð those who are not qualified by
     safeguards required by community law for practising a           law to practise the regulated medical profession as
     medical specialty regulated by Community law as a               licensed specialist medical practitioners recognised at
     specialist medical practitioner;                                Community level.
                                                                     (1) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984, p. 17.
Ð order the defendant to pay compensation to be                      (2) Case T-235/95, OJ C 64, 2.3.1996, p. 19.
     determined by the Court ex aequo et bono or by an                   Case T-262/97, OJ C 370, 6.12.1997, p. 8.
     expert together with default interest at a rate to be               Case T-286/97, OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
                                                                     (3) Case C-148/96 P(R), (1996) ECR I-3883.
     fixed by the Court for the non-material damage
                                                                         Case C-78/97 P(R), (not published).
     suffered by the applicant, a specialist medical                     Case C-199/98 P(R), pending.
     practitioner in rheumatology recognised at Community
     level, and listed on the Specialist List, in so far as the
     defendant misrepresent the legal status of the category
     of medical practitioners legally entitled to practise as
     specialist medical practitioners recognised at
     Community level in the Citizens First Factsheet on the
     Recognition of Diplomas and Qualifications of
     General and Specialist Doctors in the United Kingdom            Action brought on 14 July 1998 by SocietaÁ Camar s.r.l.
     thereby tarnishing their professional reputation; and           and SocietaÁ Tico s.r.l. against Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-117/98)
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (98/C 327/51)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant is a medical practitioner of British                   An action against the Commission of the European
nationality residing in the United Kingdom, who has                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
already brought several cases to the Court of First                  Instance of the European Communities on 14 July 1998
Instance of the European Communities (2) and the Court               by SocietaÁ Camar s.r.l. and SocietaÁ Tico s.r.l., represented
of Justice of the European Communities (3). He now                   by Wilma Viscardini DonaÁ, assisted by Mariano Paolin
claims having suffered damage caused by the                          and Simonetta DonaÁ, of the Padua Bar, with an address
Commission's failure to exercise the supervisory powers of           for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernst
surveillance and control conferred on it by the EC Treaty            Arendt, Rue Mathias Hardt.
in accordance with the prescribed legal framework to
adopt the measures necessary under Article 162 of the EC
Treaty to ensure that both it and its departments operate            The applicants claim that the Court should:
in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty to
guarantee the information contained in the Citizens First
Factsheet on the Recognition of Diplomas and                         Ð annul, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC
Qualifications of General and Specialist Doctors in the                   Treaty, the Commission decision Ð communicated by
United Kingdom is in conformity with Council Directive                    a letter from Franz Fischler, a Member of the
84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 and thereby protect                       Commission, dated 23/24 April 1998 and received
the legitimate interests of the applicant.                                on 14 May 1998 Ð rejecting an application for
                                                                          adaptation of the tariff quota for imports of bananas,
                                                                          pursuant to Article 16(3) of Commission Regulation
The applicant submits that his damage derives from the                    (EEC) No 1442/93 (1);
illegal publication in breach of this Directive by the
Commission, of false information contained in the
Citizens First Factsheet on the Recognition of Diplomas              Ð order the Commission, pursuant to Article 178 and
and Qualifications of General and Specialist Doctors in                   the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty,
the United Kingdom which conceals the Community                           to pay compensation for damage;
 ---pagebreak--- 24.10.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 327/29
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                             The applicants further claim breach of the principle of
                                                                     non-discrimination, in that in the regulations adopted to
                                                                     combat the difficulties caused by tropical storms in the
                                                                     Caribbean the Commission stated that the purpose of
                                                                     increasing the tariff quota was not only to ensure an
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  adequate supply for the Community market but also to
                                                                     compensate traders forming associations of or directly
                                                                     representing the producers of damaged bananas. Inasmuch
                                                                     as Somalian bananas have not been given similar
                                                                     consideration, it must be held that the applicants have
The applicants in these proceedings, two firms belonging             suffered blatant discrimination since as a result of
to the DE NADAI group and involved in importing                      comparable exceptional circumstances they have suffered
Somalian bananas, challenge the Commission's refusal to              the loss of a large proportion of the bananas needed for
adapt the tariff quota for the fourth quarter of 1997 and            their own normal imports which they cannot offset by
for each of the first two quarters of 1998, pursuant to              access to the dollar zone through the Commission's refusal
Article 16(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 (2),             to provide for an adequate increase to the tariff quota.
so as to take account of the fact that fewer Somalian
bananas were available as a result of the floods which at
that period affected the areas of Somalia where the
principal banana plantations are situated.                           Lastly, the applicants allege misuse of powers in that the
                                                                     Commission failed to consider the factual grounds.
                                                                     (1) OJ L 142, 12.6.1993, p. 6.
In the contested decision the defendant denies that                  (2) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1.
Article 16(3) is applicable for two reasons. First, while
application of that article requires that there should be a
shortfall in supplies to the Community market, the
competent department of the Commission has not
established any reduction in banana imports. Second,
because of unstable conditions in the infrastructures
relating to the loading, transport and export of the
products, it is not possible to attribute with any certainty
the reduced availability of Somalian bananas to the floods.          Action brought on 3 August 1998 by ALCE s.r.l. against
                                                                            the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-120/98)
In support of their claims, the applicants first of all allege                                (98/C 327/52)
infringement of Article 16(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/
93. They consider in this respect that the word import' in
this article is meant to refer to the effect of exceptional
circumstances on imports of traditional ACP bananas only                             (Language of the case: Italian)
and not on imports generally. In their view, by means of
the application of Article 16(3), the Commission can both
remedy the supply-side deficit which occurs whenever
Community or traditional ACP production is reduced
because of unforeseen events and also enable operators               An action against the Commission of the European
who habitually trade in the areas or countries affected by           Communities was brought before the Court of First
those events to have temporary access to dollar-zone                 Instance of the European Communities on 3 August 1998
bananas. In any event, even if the Commission intended to            by ALCE s.r.l., represented by Fabio De Ciuceis, of the
refer to Community or ACP bananas, it should be noted                Salerno Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
that in accordance with Article 16(3) it is not necessary to         the Chambers of Franco Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz.
establish that imports have actually fallen but rather that
there are exceptional circumstances liable to affect
imports. So far as regards structural shortages of Somalian
exports, the applicants maintain that, contrary to the               The applicant claims that the Court should:
defendant's arguments, it is possible to distinguish how far
the floods were responsible for reducing possible exports
in comparison with the exports which might have been
achieved if those events had not occurred, by taking as a
basis exports from Somalia in 1996 before the floods took            Ð in the main, grant the application and consequently
place. Finally, they also allege infringement of Article 16(3)           declare the product called Lyostart' to be prepared
in that the procedure laid down in Article 27 was not used               culture media for developing micro-organisms' and
in this case.                                                            thus classify it under CN code 3821 00 00;


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 April 1997 in Case T-80/96: Ana Maria Fernandes Leite Mateus v. Council of the European Union (Officials - Open competition - Non-admission to tests - Professional experience required)

text:
No C 181 / 14           EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                  14 . 6 . 97
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  pay provisionally the sum of Fl 258 565,38 , plus interest
                         of 16 April 1997                                   at 5 % from 1 September 1996, together with Fl 20 000
in Case T-80/96 : Ana Maria Fernandes Leite Mateus v.
                                                                            per year for the period between the date when the
                                                                            application for interim measures was lodged until the date
               Council of the European Union (')                            of the judgment of the Court of First Instance on the
(Officials — Open competition — Non-admission to tests                      substance, the President of the Court gave an order on
              — Professional experience required)                           21 March 1997 the operative part of which is as follows:
                            ( 97/C 181 /26 )
                                                                            1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            2.   The costs are reserved.
In Case T-80/96 : Ana Maria Fernandes Leite Mateus,
residing at Zaventem ( Belgium ), represented by Jean-Noel
Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange,
v. Council of the European Union (Agents : Diego Canga
Fano and Therese Blanchet ) — application for annulment                                    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
of the decision of 3 October 1995 of the selection board                              OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in open competition Conseil/C/360 not to admit the                                                of 21 March 1997
applicant to the tests in that competition — the Court of
                                                                            in Case T-41 /97 R: Antillean Rice Mills NV v. Council of
First Instance ( First Chamber), composed of: A. Saggio,
President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; J.                                        the European Union
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                     (Association of the overseas countries and territories —
given a judgment on 16 April 1997, in which it:                             Safeguard measure — Application for interim measures —
                                                                            Application for suspension of operation — Urgency —
 1 . annuls the decision of 3 October 1995 of the selection                                              None)
      board in competition Conseil/C/360 not to admit                                               ( 97/C 181 /28 )
     Ms    Fernandes     Leite Mateus         to  the   tests in  that
      competition;                                                                          (Language of the case: Dutch)
2 . orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay
                                                                            In Case T-41 /97 R: Antillean Rice Mills NV, established
      the costs of the applicant.
                                                                            in Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles, represented by W.
 (>) OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                            Knibbeler, of the Amsterdam Bar, and K. J. Defares, of the
                                                                            Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                            at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, supported
                                                                            by Kingdom of the Netherlands ( Agent: M. Fierstra ),
                                                                            against Council of the European Union (Agents : R.
                                                                            Torrent, J. Huber and G. Houttuin ), supported by Italian
                                                                            Republic ( Agent: F. Quadri ) and Commission of the
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                      European Communities ( Agent: T. van Rijn ) —
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   application for suspension of the operation of Council
                         of 21 March 1997                                   Regulation ( EC ) No 304/97 of 17 February 1997
                                                                            introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports of
in Case T- 179/96 R: J. Antonissen v. Council of the
                                                                            rice originating in the overseas countries and territories
 European Union and Commission of the European                              ( OJ No L 51 , 1997, p. 1 ) and, in the alternative, for
                              Communities
                                                                            adoption of any necessary or appropriate measure — the
 (Milk quotas — Action based on non-contractual liability                   President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
 of the Community — Interim measures — Provisional                          21 March 1997, the operative part of which is as follows :
payment of part of the compensation sought —
                   Conditions — Not fulfilled)                               1 . The Kingdom of the Netherlands is granted leave to
                             ( 97/C 181 /27 )                                    intervene in the interlocutory proceedings in support
                                                                                of the form of order sought by the applicant.
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                            2 . The Italian Republic and the Commission are granted
 In Case T-179/96 R: J. Antonissen, residing at Giethem                          leave to intervene in the interlocutory proceedings in
 ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of                     support of the form of order sought by the defendant.
 the Amsterdam Bar, and T. P. J. von Oers, of the Bar at
 The Hague, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
 the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume v.                          3 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
 Council of the European Union ( Agents : G. Houttuin, A.
 M. Colaert and J. P. Hix ) and Commission of the                           4.   Costs are reserved.
 European Communities ( Agent: T. van Rijn ) —
 application for an order that the European Community


title: Case C-398/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Fermo (Italy) lodged on 29 August 2012 — Criminal proceedings against M

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Fermo (Italy) lodged on 29 August 2012 — Criminal proceedings against M
   (Case C-398/12)
   2012/C 355/15
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Fermo

      Party/parties to the main proceedings

   M

      Question referred

   Does a final judgment of no case to answer given by a Member State of the European Union party to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA), (1) following an extensive preliminary investigation as part of investigations in connection with proceedings which could be re-activated in the event of fresh evidence, preclude the initiation or conduct of proceedings in respect of the same facts and the same person in another Contracting State.

      (1)  Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders; OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19.


title: Case C-96/04: Referencefor a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht Niebüll by order of that Courtof 2 June 2003 in the family-law case of StandesamtNiebüll (relating to the determination of the birth name of the German childLeonhard Matthias)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht Niebüll by order of that Court of 2 June 2003 in the family-law case of Standesamt Niebüll (relating to the determination of the birth name of the German child Leonhard Matthias)
   (Case C-96/04)
   (2004/C 106/41)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht Niebüll (Niebüll Local Court) of 2 June 2003, received at the Court Registry on 26 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the family-law case of Standesamt Niebüll (relating to the determination of the birth name of the German child Leonhard Matthias) on the following questions:
   In light of the prohibition on discrimination set out in Article 12 EC and having regard to the right to the freedom of movement for every citizen of the Union laid down in Article 18 EC, is the German provision on the conflict of laws contained in Article 10 of the EGBGB valid, in so far as it provides that the right to bear a name is governed by nationality alone?


title: Case C-410/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia by order of 22 July 2004 in the case pending before it between Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori — A.N.A.V. and Comune di Bari and A.M.T.A.B. Servizio SpA

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia by order of 22 July 2004 in the case pending before it between Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori — A.N.A.V. and Comune di Bari and A.M.T.A.B. Servizio SpA
   (Case C-410/04)
   (2004/C 300/53)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia (Regional Administrative Court for Apulia) of 22 July 2004, received at the Court Registry on 27 September 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori — A.N.A.V. against Comune di Bari and A.M.T.A.B. Servizio SpA on the following question:
   ‘Is the part of paragraph V of Article 113 of Legislative Decree No 267/00 as amended by Article 14 of Decree Law No 269/03 that sets no limit on the freedom of a public authority to choose between the different methods of awarding a contract for the provision of a public service, and, in particular, between an award as a result of a public and open tender procedure and direct award to a company wholly controlled by the authority, compatible with Community law, and, in particular, with the obligations to ensure transparency and freedom of competition pursuant to Articles 46, 49 and 86 of the Treaty?’


title: Case T-210/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  14 December 2005  — General Electric v Commission (Action for annulment — Competition — Commission decision declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Aeronautical markets — Acquisition of Honeywell by General Electric — Vertical integration — Bundling — Foreclosure — Horizontal overlaps — Rights of the defence)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/26

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 — General Electric v Commission
   (Case T-210/01) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Competition - Commission decision declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Aeronautical markets - Acquisition of Honeywell by General Electric - Vertical integration - Bundling - Foreclosure - Horizontal overlaps - Rights of the defence)
   (2006/C 48/49)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: General Electric Company (Fairfield, Connecticut (United States)) (represented by: N. Green QC, C. Booth QC, J. Simor, K. Bacon, Barristers, S. Baxter, Solicitor, L. Vogel and J. Vogel, lawyers, and, initially, by M. Van Kerckhove, lawyer, and subsequently by J. O'Leary, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal, P. Hellström and F. Siredey-Garnier, Agents)

      Intervener(s) in support of the defendant: Rolls-Royce plc (London (United Kingdom)) (represented by: A. Renshaw, Solicitor) and by Rockwell Collins, Inc. (Cedar Rapids, Iowa (United States)) (represented by: T. Soames, J. Davies and A. Ryan, Solicitors, and P.D. Camesasca, lawyer)
   Application for
   the annulment of Commission Decision 2004/134/EC of 3 July 2001 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.2220 — General Electric/Honeywell) (OJ 2004 L 48, p. 1),
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission and by the interveners.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 24.11.2001.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 14 March 1996 in Case C-31/95 P: Sergio Del Plato v. Commission of the European Communities (Official - Appeal manifestly inadmissible - Lack of pleas in law)

text:
No C 180/ 16               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 6 . 96
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   Republic (Agents : Ioanna Galani-Maragkoudaki and
                             (Fifth Chamber )                            Dimitra Tsagkaraki ) — application for a declaration that,
                                                                         by failing to adopt or to communicate to the Commission
                             of 2 May 1996                               within the prescribed period the necessary laws, regulations
in Case C-253/95 : Commission of the European                            and administrative provisions to comply with Council
        Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany                       Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                   coordination of procedures for the award of public service
                         Directive 92/50/EEC)                            contracts ( OJ No L 209, 1992, p. 1 ), the Hellenic Republic
                                                                         has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the
                                96/C 180/31 )                            Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of D. A. O. Edward,
                  (Language of the case: German)                         President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, P. Jann
                                                                         ( Rapporteur ), L. Sevon and M. Wathelet, Judges; C. O.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be             Lenz, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
            published in the European Court Reports)                     judgment on 2 May 1 996 , in which it:
In Case C-253/95 : the Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Claudia Schmidt ) v. the Federal
Republic of Germany ( Agents: Ernst Rôder and Bernd                      1 . Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
Kloke ) — application for a declaration that, by failing to                  period the necessary laws, regulations and
                                                                             administrative provisions to comply with Council
adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
needed in order to comply with Council Directive                             Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of                    coordination of procedures for the award of public
                                                                             service contracts, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
procedures for the award of public service contracts ( OJ No
                                                                             fulfil its obligations under Article 44 (1 ) of that
L 209, 1992 , p . 1 ) and, in the alternative, by failing to                 Directive .
inform the Commission forthwith of the measures taken,
the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the
EC Treaty in conjunction with Article 44 ( 1 ) of that                   2 . Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Directive — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of
D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber, J. -P.
                                                                         (') OJ No C 315 , 25 . 11 . 1995 .
Puissochet, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ), L. Sevôn and M.
Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R.
Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 May 1996, in which
it :
1 . Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
       period, the laws, regulations and administrative
       provisions needed in order to comply with Council
       Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
       coordination of procedures for the award of public
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
       service contracts, the Federal Republic of Germany has
       failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 44 (1 ) of that                            of 14 March 1996
       Directive.
                                                                         in Case C-31/95 P: Sergio Del Plato v. Commission of the
2 . Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                                      European Communities C )
       costs .                                                           (Official — Appeal manifestly inadmissible — Lack ofpleas
                                                                                in law)
0 ) OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/33 )
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                             of 2 May 1996
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
in      Case    C-311/95 : Commission of the             European                 published in the European Court Reports)
               Communities v. Hellenic Republic (*)
     (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/50/EEC)
                              ( 96/C 180/32 )                            In Case C-31/95 P : Sergio Del Plato ( Represented by: Luigi
                                                                         Bonomi ) — appeal against the order of the Court of First
                   (Language of the case: Greek)                         Instance of the European Communities ( First Chamber ) of
                                                                         7   December     1994     in   Case  T-242/94   Del  Plato    v.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)                     Commission [ 1994] ECR-SC 11-961 , seeking to have that
                                                                         order set aside, the other party to the proceedings being the
In Case C-311 /95 : Commission of the European                           Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
Communities (Agent: Dimitrios Gouloussis ) v. Hellenic                   Gianluigi Valsesia ) — the Court ( Second Chamber ),
 ---pagebreak---   22. 6 . 96          I EN I                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 180/17
  composed of G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ), President of the               2 . The appellant shall bear the costs.
  Chamber, G. F. Mancini and F. A. Schockweiler, Judges; N.
  Fennelly, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an
  order on 14 March 1996 , the operative part of which is as           (!) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995
  follows :
  1 . The appeal is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
  2 . Mr Del Plato is ordered to pay the costs of these
        proceedings.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
  0 ) OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .                                                               of 25 March 1996
                                                                       in Case C-137/95 P: Vereniging van Samenwerkende
                                                                       Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid and
                                                                         Others v. Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
                                                                        (Appeal — Competition — Decisions of associations of
                                                                        undertakings — Exemption — Appraisal of the gravity of
                                                                             the infringements — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/35 )
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                         ( Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                          of 24 April 1996
  in Case C-87/95 P: Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza ed
  Assistenza a favore degli Avvocati e Procuratori ( CNPAAP)            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
               v. Council of the European Union ( ! )                             published in the European Court Reports)
   (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 3604/93
   specifying definitions for the application of the prohibition
   ofprivileged access referred to in Article 104a ofthe Treaty         In Case C-137/95 P : Vereniging van Samenwerkende
          — Admissibility — Appeal clearly unfounded)                   Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid and
                            ( 96/C 180/34 )                             Others ( represented by L. H. van Lennep and E. H. Pijnacker
                                                                        Hordijk ) — appeal against the judgment of the Court of
                                                                        First Instance of the European Communities of 21 February
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                      1995 , Case T-29/92 SPO and Others v. Commission [ 1995 ]
                                                                        ECR 11-289 , seeking to have that judgment set aside, the
                                                                        other party to the proceedings being the Commission of the
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         European Communities ( Agent: B. J. Drijber, assisted by P.
            published in the European Court Reports)                    Glazener, Avocat) — the Court, composed of G. C.
                                                                        Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.
                                                                        Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
   In Case C-87/95 P : Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza ed                 Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
   Assistenza a favore degli Avvocati e Procuratori ( CNPAAP )          Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L.
   ( represented by Pietro Adonino, Mario Sanino, Maurizio de           Murray, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ), H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón
   Stefano and Alberto Colabianchi ) — appeal against the               and M. Wathelet, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General;
   order of the Court of First Instance of the European                 R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 25 March 1996 , the
   Communities (Third Chamber ) of 11 January 1995 in Case              operative part of which is as follows :
   T-l 16/94 Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza ed Assistenza a
   favore degli Avvocati e Procuratori v. Council of the
   European Union [ 1995 ] ECR II- 1 , seeking to have that              1 . The appeal is dismissed.
   order set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
   Council of the European Union ( Agents: Rüdiger Bandilla
   and Antonio Lucidi ) — the Court ( Fourth Chamber ),                  1 . The applicants are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay
„ composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber, P. J.                 the costs .
   G. Kapteyn and J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur), Judges; A. La
   Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an
   order on 24 April 1996 , the operative part of which is as            (<) OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7 . 1995 .
   follows :
    1 . The appeal is dismissed.


title: Judgment of the Court of 23 February 1999 in Case C-63/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Bayerische Motorenwerke AG (BMW) and BMW Nederland BV v. Ronald Karel Deenik (Trade-marks directive - Unauthorised use of the BMW trade mark in advertisements for a garage business)

text:
C 121/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            1.5.1999
preliminary ruling in the administrative proceedings brought               1. Subject to the duty of the national court to interpret national law
before that court by AFS Intercultural Programs Finland ry                     as far as possible in conformity with Community law, it is not
on the interpreation of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of                        contrary to the latter for a transitional rule of national law to
13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package                   provide that an appeal against a decision given before the
tours (OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 59) — the Court (Fifth                          date on which the rules transposing First Council Directive
Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of the                       89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of
Chamber, P. Jann, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward                     the Member States relating to trade marks into national law
and L. Sevón, Judges, A. Saggio, Advocate-General; H.A. Rühl,                 were belatedly brought into force is to be decided in accordance
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment               with the rules applicable before that date, even where judgment
on 11 February 1999 in which it has ruled:                                     is given after that date.
Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel,            2. The use of a trade mark, without the proprietor’s authorisation,
package holidays and package tours does not apply to travel:                   for the purpose of informing the public that another undertaking
                                                                               carries out the repair and maintenance of goods covered by that
— Comprising student exchanges of about six months’ or a year’s                mark or that it has specialised or is a specialist in such goods
    duration;                                                                  constitutes, in circumstances such as those described in the
                                                                               judgment making the reference, use of the mark within the
— The purpose of which is attendance by the student at an                      meaning of Article 5(1) (a) of First Directive 89/104/EEC.
    educational establishment in the host country in order to
    familiarise himself with its people and culture; and                   3. Articles 5 to 7 of First Directive 89/104/EEC do not entitle the
                                                                               proprietor of a trade mark to prohibit a third party from using
— During which the student stays with a host family as if he were              the mark for the purpose of informing the public that he carries
    a member thereof free of charge.                                           out the repair and maintenance of goods covered by that trade
                                                                               mark and put on the market under that mark by the proprietor
                                                                               or with his consent, or that he has specialised or is a specialist in
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.                                                       the sale or the repair and maintenance of such goods, unless the
                                                                               mark is used in a way that may create the impression that there
                                                                               is a commercial connection between the other undertaking and
                                                                               the trade mark proprietor, and in particular that the resseller’s
                                                                               business is affiliated to the trade mark proprietor’s distribution
                                                                               network or that there is a special relationship between the two
                                                                               undertakings.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           (1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
                       of 23 February 1999
in Case C-63/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Bayerische Moto-
renwerke AG (BMW) and BMW Nederland BV v. Ronald
                          Karel Deenik (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Trade-marks directive — Unauthorised use of the BMW
     trade mark in advertisements for a garage business)                                              (Fifth Chamber)
                          (1999/C 121/03)                                                          of 25 February 1999
                                                                           in Case C-320/95: (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                          the Juzgado de lo Social No 1, Santiago de Compostela)
                                                                           José Ferreiro Alvite v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo
                                                                           (INEM) and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                    (INSS) (1)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Article 51 of the EC Treaty — Article 67 of Regulation
In case C-63/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               (EEC) No 1408/71 — Unemployment benefit for persons
the EC Treaty from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nether-                                          over 52 years of age)
lands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Bayerische Motorenwerke AG                                                  (1999/C 121/04)
(BMW) and BMW Nederland BV and Ronald Karel Deenik —
on the interpretation of Articles 5 to 7 of First Council
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate                                        (Language of the case: Spanish)
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ L40,
11.2.1989, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
Iglesias, President, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and R. Schint-                                    in the European Court Reports)
gen, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein,
Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on               In case C-320/95: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
23 February 1999, in which it has ruled:                                   the EC Treaty from the Juzgado de lo Social (Social Court),


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 13 June 1996 in Case C-144/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal de Police, Toulouse): Criminal proceedings against Jean-Louis Maurin (Request for a preliminary ruling - Interpretation of the principles concerning observance of the rights of the defence and of the adversarial nature of proceedings - National legislation and the prevention of fraud - Foodstuffs - No jurisdiction)

text:
No C 210/4            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   20 . 7 . 96
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  of Cassation ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                       ( Third Chamber )                             pending before that court between Office National de
                                                                     l'Emploi and Calogero Spataro — on the interpretation of
                        of 13 June 1996                              Article 69 ( 4 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of
in Case C-144/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling made           14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
by the Tribunal de Police,«'Toulouse ): Criminal proceedings         to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
                against Jean-Louis Maurin ( 1 )                      members of their families moving within the Community, as
(Request for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of the            amended and updated by Council Regulation ( EEC )
principles concerning observance ofthe rights ofthe defence          No 2001 /83 ( OJ No L 230, 1983 , p . 6 ) — the Court ( Third
and of the adversarial nature of proceedings — National              Chamber ), composed of: J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ),
legislation and the prevention offraud — Foodstuffs — No             President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and C.
                            jurisdiction)                            Gulmann, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; D.
                                                                     Louterman-Hubeau , Principal Administrator, for the
                          ( 96/C 210/06 )                            Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 June 1996 the operative
                                                                     part of which is as follows :
               (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         Article 69 (4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
         published in the European Court Reports)                    14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
                                                                     to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
In Case C-144/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177          members of their families moving within the Community, as
of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de Police ( Local Crime             amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
Court), Toulouse ( France ), for a preliminary ruling in the         No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 , applies not to an unemployed
criminal proceedings before that court against Jean-Louis            person's acquisition of entitlement to benefits, but to his
Maurin — on the interpretation of the principles concerning          requalification for benefits, when he returns to Belgium
observance of the rights of the defence and of the adversarial       after the three-month period prescribed by Article 69 (1 ) (c)
nature of proceedings — the Court ( Third Chamber ),                 has expired. Article 69 (4) does not permit entitlement to
composed of: J. -P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,            benefits to be denied to unemployed persons who, on the
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ) and C. Gul                 date of their application for benefits, fulfil the conditions
mann, Judges; A. La Pergola , Advocate-General; D.                   imposed by Belgian law for acquisition of such
Louterman-Hubeau , Principal Administrator, for the                  entitlement.
Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 June 1996 , the
operative part of which is as follows :                              (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
The Court does not have jurisdiction to determine whether
procedural rules applicable to offences under national
legislation which falls outside the scope of Community law
may be in breach of the principles concerning observance of
the rights of the defence and of the adversarial nature of
proceedings.                                                                           ORDER OF THE COURT
(') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                                           of 23 May 1996
                                                                     in the case of Daniel Zanone v. Council of Europe and the
                                                                                French Republic
                                                                                Case C-9/96 P )
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                            ( 96/C 210/08 )
                       ( Third Chamber )
                        of 13 June 1996                              On 15 January 1996 an appeal was lodged before the Court
                                                                     of Justice of the European Communities against the order of
in Case C-170/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of
the Belgian Cour de Cassation ): Office National de l'Emploi         16 November 1995 dismissing, on the ground of manifest
                   v. Calogero Spataro (')                           lack of jurisdiction, the action brought by Daniel Zanone ,
(Social security — Unemployment benefit — Article 69 (4)             represented by Véronique Ducros de Lafarge de Romefort,
             of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)                         of the Paris Bar, 17 rue des archives, Paris, against the
                          ( 96/C 210/07 )                            Council of Europe and the French Republic, the proceedings
                                                                     not having been served on the defendants .
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     By order of 23 May 1996 the Court of Justice ( First
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         Chamber ) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to
         published in the European Court Reports)                    bear his own costs .
In Case C-170/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Belgian Cour de Cassation ( Court


1 . 11 . 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 331 /1
                                                                     I
                                                              (Information)
                                                 COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                           COURT OF JUSTICE
      Taking of the oath by new Members of the Court                          Decisions adopted by the Court at its meeting of
                                                                                7 October 1997
                            ( 97/C 331 /01 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 331/03 )
                                                                        The Court of Justice of the European Communities
Following his appointment as Judge of the Court of                      adopted the following decisions at its meeting of 7 October
Justice of the European Communities by Decision of the                  1997 :
Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
of 29 May 1997 ( ] ), for the period from 7 October 1997                Assignment of Judge Ioannou
to 6 October 2003 , Mr Krateros Ioannou took the oath
before the Court on 6 October 1997.                                     The Court decided to assign Judge Ioannou to the Fourth
                                                                        and Sixth Chambers .
                                                                        Appointment of the Presidents of the Chambers
Following his appointment as Advocate General of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities by                         In accordance with Article 10 ( 1 ) of the Rules of
Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the               Procedure, the Court has appointed for a period of one
Member States of 29 May 1997 H, for the period from                     year starting on 7 October 1997:
7 October 1997 to 6 October 2003 , Mr Siegbert Alber
took the oath before the Court on 6 October 1997.                       — Mr Wathelet as President of the First Chamber,
                                                                        — Mr Schintgen as President of the Second Chamber,
(') OJ L 145 , 5 . 6 . 1997, p . 28 .
                                                                        — Mr Gulmann as President of the Third and Fifth
                                                                             Chambers,
                                                                        — Mr Ragnemalm as President of the Fourth and Sixth
                                                                             Chambers .
                                                                        Composition of the Chambers
            Election of the President of the Court                      1 . The composition of the Chambers for the same period
                                                                        has been determined as follows :
                            ( 97/C 331/02 )
                                                                        First Chamber
                                                                        Mr Wathelet, President of the Chamber,
At the meeting on 7 October 1997, the Judges of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities elected, in                Mr Edward, Mr Jann and Mr Sevón, Judges .
accordance with Article 7 ( 1 ) of the Rules of Procedure,
Mr Gil Carlos Rodriguez Iglesias as President of the Court              Second Chamber
for the period from 7 October 1997 up to and including
6 October 2000 .                                                        Mr Schintgen, President of the Chamber,
                                                                        Mr Mancini and Mr Hirsch, Judges.
                                                                        Third Chamber
 ---pagebreak--- C 331 /2               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 1 . 11 . 97
Mr Gulmann, President of the Chamber,                                 are formally joined ) the composition of the bench shall be
                                                                      that determined for the first of the cases discussed at a
Mr Moitinho de Almeida and Mr Puissochet, Judges.                     general meeting.
Fourth Chamber                                                        4. For the period ending on 6 October 1998 the lists
                                                                      referred to above are as follows :
Mr Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,
                                                                      First Chamber
Mr Kapteyn, Mr Murray and Mr Ioannou, Judges .
                                                                      ( President: Mr Wathelet)
Fifth Chamber
Mr Gulmann, President of the Chamber,                                 Judge Edward, Judge Jann, Judge Sevón.
Mr Wathelet, Mr Moitinho de Almeida, Mr Edward, Mr                    Fourth Chamber
Puissochet, Mr Jann and Mr Sevón, Judges.
                                                                      ( President: Mr Ragnemalm)
Sixth Chamber
                                                                      Judge Kapteyn, Judge Murray, Judge Ioannou.
Mr Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,
Mr Schintgen, Mr Mancini, Mr Kapteyn, Mr Murray, Mr                   Fifth Chamber
Hirsch and Mr Ioannou, Judges.
                                                                      ( President: Mr Gulmann )
2 . For each case assigned to them, the First Chamber and
the Fourth Chamber (to each of which four judges are                  Judge Edward, Judge Jann, Judge Sevón, Judge Wathelet,
attached ) shall be composed of the President of the                  Judge Moitinho de Almeida, Judge Puissochet.
Chamber, . the Judge-Rapporteur, and a third judge
designated in accordance with a list of the judges in order
                                                                      Sixth Chamber
of seniority. At each general meeting the starting point on
that list shall be moved down one name .
                                                                      (President: Mr Ragnemalm )
3 . For each case assigned to a large Chamber — the Fifth
Chamber and the Sixth Chamber, to each of which seven
                                                                      Judge Kapteyn, Judge Murray, Judge Ioannou, Judge
judges are attached — the five judges who are to sit shall            Mancini, Judge Hirsch, Judge Schintgen.
be determined on the basis of a list drawn up for the
judicial year comprising all the judges of the Chamber,
except the President, in the following order:                         Appointment of the First Advocate General
( a ) the judges of the small Chamber to which four judges            In accordance with Article 10 ( 1 ) of the Rules of
      are attached, in order of seniority;                            Procedure the Court of Justice appointed Advocate
                                                                      General Cosmas as First Advocate General for a period of
( b ) the judes of the other small Chamber, in the same               one year starting on 7 October 1997.
      order.
For each case the large Chamber shall be composed of:
— the President,
                                                                      Taking of the oath by a new Member of the Court of First
— the Judge-Rapporteur,                                                           Instance of the European Communities
                                                                                ( 97/C 331/04 )
— three judges appointed in order from the list; the
      starting point on that list shall be moved down one
      name at each general meeting.                                   Following his appointment as Judge of the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities by Decision of the
Any judges prevented from sitting shall be replaced in                Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
order from the list. However, should the President of the             of 29 May 1997 ( ! ), Mr Karl Jörg Pirrung took the oath
large Chamber be prevented from sitting, he must be                   before the Court on 11 June 1997.
replaced if possible by the President of the small Chamber.
                                                                       (') OJ L 145 , 5 . 6 . 1997, p. 27.
If the Court, or a Chamber, deems it appropriate to hear
and determine several cases together ( whether or not they


title: Action brought on 18 May 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-188/98)

text:
C 234/14                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.7.98
     that is the case, there is no scope left for the exercise        falls within the scope of the EC Treaty because, although
     of discretion.                                                   their main purpose is not to maximise or redistribute
                                                                      profits, the associations in question may provide services
                                                                      for consideration or obtain income, thus participating in
Ð (In the alternative) Incorrect exercise of discretion in            economic life. The expression profit-making' used in the
     making an assessment under Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of           second paragraph of Article 58 of the EC Treaty refers to
     the EC Treaty.                                                   a Community law concept and does not relate to the
                                                                      domestic law of the Member States.
Ð In so far as the Commission considers that there was a
     breach of Article 52 of the EC Treaty, that too is not
     capable of founding the lawfulness of the contested
     decision. Article 52 of the EC Treaty does not
     constitute a suitable legal basis for the contested
     decision.                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
                                                                      Amministrativo per la Sardegna by judgment of that court
                                                                      of 12 February 1998, in the case of Holst Italia SpA
                                                                      against Municipality of Cagliari and Ruhrwasser AG
                                                                                International Water Management SpA
                                                                                (Case C-176/98)
Action brought on 8 May 1998 by the Commission of the                                         (98/C 234/26)
  European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                          (Case C-172/98)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                           (98/C 234/25)                              European Communities by judgment of the Tribunale
                                                                      Amministrativo per la Sardegna (Administrative Court,
                                                                      Sardinia), of 12 February 1998, received at the Court
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                  Registry on 11 May 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities               case of Holst Italia SpA against Municipality of Cagliari
on 8 May 1998 by the Commission of the European                       and Ruhrwasser AG International Water Management
Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of its Legal               SpA on the following question:
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                          whether Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992
                                                                      relating to the coordination of procedures for the award
                                                                      of public service contracts allows a company to prove that
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           it possesses the technical and financial qualifications laid
                                                                      down for admission to a published tendering procedure
                                                                      for the award of a public service contract by relying on
1. declare that, by requiring, as appropriate, the presence           the references of another person who is the sole
     of a Belgian associate on the board of an association            shareholder of one of the companies which own the first-
     or a minimum number of associates of Belgian                     mentioned company.'
     nationality which must, moreover, constitute a
     majority, before an association may be incorporated or           (1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
     granted legal personality, the Kingdom of Belgium has
     failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of the EC
     Treaty;
2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                      Action brought on 18 May 1998 by the Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-188/98)
The legislation referred to, namely:
                                                                                (98/C 234/27)
Ð the Law of 25 October 1919 which confers legal
     personality on international associations whose objects          An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
     are philanthropic, religious, scientific, artistic or            brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     pedagogical',                                                    Communities on 18 May 1998 by the Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of
                                                                      its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
Ð the Law of 27 June 1921 which confers legal                        service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
     personality on non-profit-making associations . . .'             Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- 25.7.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 234/15
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from, the Corte dei
                                                                    Conti Ð Chamber responsible for verifying acts of the
                                                                    Government and of State Administrations Ð by order of
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force           20 March and 7 April 1998 in proceedings involving the
    or, in the alternative, to communicate, within the              Ministry of Public Works, the Ministry of Finance, the
    prescribed period the laws, regulations and                     Budget and Economic Planning, and ANAS Ð Azienda
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with              Nazionale Autonoma delle Strade (now Ente Nazionale
    Council Directive 92/101/EEC (1) of 23 November                                           per le Strade)
    1992 amending Directive 77/91/EEC (2) on the
                                                                                (Case C-192/98)
    formation of public limited-liability companies and the
    maintenance and alteration of their capital, the Grand                                   (98/C 234/29)
    Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
    obligations under Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty;          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    and                                                             European Communities by an order of the Corte dei Conti
                                                                    (Italian Court of Auditors) Ð Chamber responsible for
                                                                    verifying acts of the Government and of State
2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.                            Administrations Ð of 20 March and 7 April 1998, which
                                                                    was received at the Court Registry on 19 May 1998, for a
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 preliminary ruling in proceedings involving the Ministry of
                                                                    Public Works, the Ministry of Finance, the Budget and
                                                                    Economic Planning, and ANAS (Azienda Nazionale
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                 Autonoma delle Strade Ð Autonomous National
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of                 Highways Agency) (now Ente Nazionale per le Strade), on
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                the following questions:
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives
addressed to them into their domestic law before the                1. Whether the particular features of Council Directive
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so. That period                92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992 relating to the
expired on 1 January 1994 without the Grand Duchy of                     coordination of procedures for the award of public
Luxembourg having brought into force the necessary                       service contracts Ð which, as is known, provides for a
provisions.                                                              transitional period for its full application (21st recital
                                                                         in its preamble), for the utilization of two series of
                                                                         provisions, depending on whether the services
(1) OJ L 347 of 28.11.1991, p. 64.
                                                                         concerned are those listed in Annex IA or in Annex IB
(2) OJ L 26 of 30.1.1977, p. 1.
                                                                         (Articles 8 and 9), and for a procedure for review
                                                                         (within three years) of the results achieved, with a
                                                                         view to making the Directive fully applicable to a
                                                                         wider range of service contracts' (27th recital and
                                                                         Article 43) Ð are such as to preclude or render more
                                                                         difficult its immediate applicability in domestic law (as
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandes-                    from 1 July 1993) in the absence of a formal measure
gericht Linz by order of that court of 15 April 1998 in the              adopted by the Member State to transpose it;
case of Volker Graf against Filzmoser Maschinenbau
                             GmbH                                   2. Whether or not Ð if the first question is answered in
                                                                         the negative Ð the provisions of the abovementioned
                       (Case C-190/98)                                   directive (services covered by Article 8) are applicable
                        (98/C 234/28)                                    to the ANAS (Azienda Nazionale Autonoma delle
                                                                         Strade Ð Autonomous National Highways Agency) as
                                                                         regards the fulfilment or otherwise of the requirements
                                                                         of Community law for it to be regarded as a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         contracting authority' within the meaning of
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
                                                                         Article 1(b) of the abovementioned directive;
Linz (Higher Regional Court, Linz) of 15 April 1998,
received at the Court Registry on 19 April 1998, for a
                                                                    3. Whether, if the foregoing question is answered in the
preliminary ruling in the case of Volker Graf against
                                                                         affirmative, the application of Directive 92/50/EEC Ð
Filzmoser Maschinenbau GmbH on the following
                                                                         which does not appear to be a matter of any doubt
question:
                                                                         regarding the loan agreement concluded with the
                                                                         group of Italian banks to raise the fourth and last
Does Article 48 of the EC Treaty preclude national                       tranche of the LIT 8 000 billion loan authorised by
provisions under which an employee who is a national of                  Law No 405/90 Ð must be recognised also with
a Member State is not entitled to compensation on                        respect to the agreement between ANAS and Nomura
termination of his employment relationship simply because                International Plc raising LIT 2 000 billion (third
he himself gave notice terminating that relationship in                  tranche) by means of a bond loan based on the issue
order to take up employment in another Member State?                     of variable-rate Eurobonds denominated in US dollars,
                                                                         having regard to the fact that the 13th recital in the
                                                                         preamble and Article 2(a)(viii) [sic] (2) of the
                                                                         abovementioned directive exclude from bank services


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  24 November 2005  in Joined Cases C-138/03, C-324/03 and C-431/03: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Structural funds — Co-financing — Regulations (EC) No 1260/1999 and No 1685/2000 — Conditions concerning the eligibility of payments on account made by national bodies within the framework of State aid schemes)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 24 November 2005
   in Joined Cases C-138/03, C-324/03 and C-431/03: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for annulment - Structural funds - Co-financing - Regulations (EC) No 1260/1999 and No 1685/2000 - Conditions concerning the eligibility of payments on account made by national bodies within the framework of State aid schemes)
   (2006/C 36/04)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Joined Cases C-138/03, C-324/03 and C-431/03: actions for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 27 March 2003 (C-138/03), 24 July 2003 (C-324/03) and 9 October 2003 (C-431/03), Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by A. Cingolo, avvocato dello Stato) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. de March and L. Flynn, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, avvocato), the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and E. Levits, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 24 November 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares it unnecessary to give judgment on the action in Case C-138/03;

               2.

               Dismisses the action in Case C-324/03;

               3.

               Dismisses the action in Case C-431/03 as inadmissible;

               4.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs relating to Case C-138/03;

               5.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs relating to Cases C-324/03 and C-431/03.

      (1)  OJ C 135 of 7.6.2003

      OJ C 226 of 20.9.2003

      OJ C 304 of 13.12.2003.


title: Case T-210/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 December 2008 — RSA Security Ireland v Commission (Action for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Issue of binding tariff information — Power of the national customs authorities — Non-actionable measure — Inadmissibility)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/47

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 December 2008 — RSA Security Ireland v Commission
   (Case T-210/07) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Common Customs Tariff - Issue of binding tariff information - Power of the national customs authorities - Non-actionable measure - Inadmissibility)
   (2009/C 44/82)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: RSA Security Ireland (Shannon, Ireland) (represented by: B. Conway, Barrister, and S. Daly, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Schønberg and D. Lawunmi, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for the annulment of a decision allegedly taken by the Commission and communicated to the applicant by email of the Irish Revenue Commissioners of 30 March 2007 concerning the classification of goods under a certain heading of the Combined Nomenclature.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               RSA Security Ireland Ltd shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 December 1998 in Case T-233/97: Folmer Bang-Hansen v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Transfer of pension rights - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations)

text:
C 48/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
2. Declares that that sum will bear interest at an annual               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    rate of 8 % with effect from the date of this judgment                              of 30 November 1998
    and until due payment.
                                                                   in Case T-97/94: N v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
3. Orders the Parliament to pay its own costs and the              (Former officials Ð Staff report Ð Legal interest in
    costs of the applicant.                                                   bringing proceedings Ð Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/52)
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   In Case T-97/94: N, a former official of the Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
                                                                   represented by Georges A. Sakellaropoulos, of the Athens
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                   Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission
                    of 15 December 1998                            of the European Communities (Agent: Lucio Gussetti) Ð
in Case T-233/97: Folmer Bang-Hansen v. Commission of              application, first, for annulment of the applicant's staff
                the European Communities (1)                       report, prepared by the Commission, for the period from
                                                                   1 July 1989 to 30 June 1991 and, second, for
(Officials Ð Transfer of pension rights Ð Article 11(2) of         compensation for the material and non-material damage
            Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations)                   allegedly suffered as a result of that report Ð the Court of
                                                                   First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. D. Cooke,
                        (1999/C 48/51)                             President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H.
                                                                   Jung, Registrar, made an order on 30 November 1998, the
                                                                   operative part of which is as follows:
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-233/97: Folmer Bang-Hansen, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, represented                2. The parties are to bear their own costs.
by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2          (1) OJ C 120, 30.4.1994.
Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v. Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Florence
Duvieusart-Clotuche) Ð application for annulment of the
Commission's decision of 16 October 1996 providing that
the time-limit for transferring pension rights is to be
calculated separately for each transfer and refusing the
applicant's request for aggregation of transfers from the               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Andels-Pensionsforening       and   the    Juristernes    og                            of 25 November 1998
ékonomernes Pensionskasse Ð the Court of First Instance
(First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President,            in Case T-255/97: Georges Keiser v. Commission of the
R. M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,                                  European Communities (1)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 December 1998, in
                                                                   (Officials Ð Time-limits for bringing proceedings Ð
which it:
                                                                                Manifest inadmissibility)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/53)
1. Annuls the Commission's decision of 16 October 1996
    providing that the time-limit for transferring pension                        (Language of the case: French)
    rights is to be calculated separately for each transfer
    and refusing the applicant's request for aggregation of
    transfers from the Andels-Pensionsforening and the             In Case T-255/97: Georges Keiser, an official of the
    Juristernes og ékonomernes Pensionskasse.                      Commission of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                   Asselscheuer (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), represented
                                                                   by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                         service in Luxembourg at 44 Rue du Grunewald,
                                                                   Asselscheuer,     v.    Commission      of   the   European
                                                                   Communities (Agent: Christine Berardis-Kayser) Ð
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                          application for annulment of the refusal of the applicant's
                                                                   request to be re-assigned to the post held by him prior to
                                                                   the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings brought
                                                                   against him Ð the Court of First Instance (First


title: Case C-200/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 12 April 2007 — Alfonso Luigi Marra v Edoardo De Gregorio

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 12 April 2007 — Alfonso Luigi Marra v Edoardo De Gregorio
   (Case C-200/07)
   (2007/C 129/22)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte Suprema di Cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alfonso Luigi Marra

      Defendant: Edoardo De Gregorio
   Questions referred

               1.

               In the event that a Member of the European Parliament does not act by exercising the right granted to him under Rule [6(3)] of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (1) directly to request the President to defend privileges and immunities, is the court before which a civil action is pending in any event required to request the President to waive immunity for the purposes of pursuing proceedings and adopting a decision?
               or

               2.

               In the absence of a communication by the European Parliament that it intends to defend the immunities and privileges of the Member concerned, may the court before which that civil action is pending rule as to the existence or otherwise of that privilege, regard being had to the specific circumstances of the case?

      (1)  OJ L 44, 15.2.2005, p. 1.