title: Action brought on 10 December 1997 by Pescados Congelados Jogamar SL against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-311/97)

text:
28.3.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 94/27
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities on 8 December 1997 by J. Ward, B. Ward
and Mrs M. Lewis, represented by Rory Hutchings,
Solicitor, of Messrs Dawson & Co., of 2 New Square,                The applicant, the company which owns the vessel Albor
Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3RZ.                                    Uno, alleges that the defendant failed to use its exclusive
                                                                   powers in the fisheries sector when the aforementioned
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        vessel was seized, and subsequently arrested, on 16 July
                                                                   1997 by a Moroccan patrol vessel on the ground that it
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission for damages              was fishing 4,5 nautical miles off the Moroccan coast. The
    in accordance with Schedule 1 attached hereto,                 applicant denies this and asserts that the vessel was
                                                                   13 miles offshore when it was seized. Moreover, the
                                                                   limited measures which the Commission took merely
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the               consisted of visiting the vessel, drawing up an expert
    applicant's costs.                                             report and replying to a fax from the applicant. Although
                                                                   it is true that the Commission called a meeting of the EU-
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Morocco Joint Committee, whose task it is to ensure the
                                                                   observance of fishing agreements, Morocco refused
The applicant challenges the damaging consequences of              systematically to attend that meeting. The relase of the
the fact that, unlike the position with respect to SLOM I          vessel was achieved after difficult negotiations undertaken
and II, he, as a SLOM II milk producer, has not been               directly and at personal level between the shipowner and
compensated for the absence of quota prior to the                  the relevant Moroccan authorities with no official
introduction of SLOM quota.                                        participation at any time, either on the part of the Spanish
                                                                   or Community authorities.
The grounds and main arguments are the same as those
raised in case T-304/97 Hilsdon v. Council and
Commission.                                                        In the applicant's view, the defendant's failure to act was
                                                                   detrimental to the right to a fair hearing of a Community
                                                                   undertaking and vessel and deprived them of protection
                                                                   since the only way of establishing the facts was by
                                                                   communicating with the Moroccan authorities, which was
                                                                   not done, and monitoring the situation by the Community
                                                                   was the only safeguard, which, by being delegated to the
Action brought on 10 December 1997 by Pescados
                                                                   Spanish authorities, was in fact denied. Moreover, the fact
Congelados Jogamar SL against the Commission of the
                                                                   that Morocco does not regard the GPS system as a means
                    European Communities
                                                                   of establishing a vessel's position and accepts only its
                        (Case T-311/97)                            naval radar reports is seriously detrimental to the rights of
                          (98/C 94/70)                             the defence of fishing vessels equipped with that system.
               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                   Finally, if it is indeed the Community which is competent
                                                                   by virtue of the fishing agreements, it falls to it to
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   denounce the total and complete ineffectiveness of an
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   agreement which deprives European Union citizens and
Instance of the European Communities on 10 December
                                                                   vessels of any protection, and to take measures to prevent
1997 by Pescados Congelados Jogamar SL, whose
                                                                   it or, on the contrary, to emend Community law.
registered office is at Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Spain),
represented by Manuel de Cristóbal López, of the Madrid
Bar, with an address for service at 15 Calle Prim, Madrid.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð uphold this action for declaration of failure to act;
                                                                   Action brought on 29 December 1997 by Cordis Obst und
    declare that the European Commission's failure to
                                                                   Gemüse Grosshandel GmbH against the Commission of
    take action with regard to the seizure of the Albor
                                                                                the European Communities
    Uno constitutes a breach of the EEC Treaty (Article 38
    et seq.) and of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3954/92                                    (Case T-612/97)
    of 19 December 1992 on the conclusion of the
    Agreement on relations in the sea fisheries sector                                       (98/C 94/71)
    between the European Economic Community and the
    Kingdom of Morocco and laying down provisions for
    its implementation; declare that the European                                  (Language of the case: German)
    Commission should take action itself rather than
    delegate power to the national authorities in the
    fisheries sector; and make an express order requiring          An action against the Commission of the European
    the European Commission to pay the costs incurred.             Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case T-134/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of  2 May 2006  — Belgium v Commission (European Social Fund — Recovery by means of set-off against Community debts — Time-barred — Interest for late payment — Action for annulment — Objection of inadmissibility — Challengeable act — Inadmissible)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/26

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 May 2006 — Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-134/05) (1)

   (European Social Fund - Recovery by means of set-off against Community debts - Time-barred - Interest for late payment - Action for annulment - Objection of inadmissibility - Challengeable act - Inadmissible)
   (2006/C 165/51)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J. Devadder, Agent, and J.P. Buyle and C. Steyaert, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris, G. Wilms and A. Weimar, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission's decision contained in its letter of 19 January 2005, by which the Commission replied to the letters from the Kingdom of Belgium regarding funds paid to various Belgian bodies under the European Social Fund.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 12 February 1998 in Case C-139/97: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 94/2/EC)

text:
28.3.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 94/3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                                       (Sixth Chamber)
                     of 12 February 1998                                                   of 12 February 1998
in    Case   C-139/97: Commission of the             European        in    Case    C-144/97: Commission of the European
              Communities v. Italian Republic (1)                                   Communities v. French Republic (1)
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose                (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                      Directive 94/2/EC)                                                  Directive 92/74/EEC)
                                                                                (98/C 94/06)
                         (98/C 94/05)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-144/97: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agents: Richard Wainwright and Jean-
In Case C-139/97: Commission of the European                         Francis Pasquier) v. French Republic (Agents: Kareen
Communities (Agent: Paolo Stancanelli, assisted by                   Rispal-Bellanger and FreÂdeÂric Pascal) Ð application for a
Massimo Merola) v. Italian Republic (Agent: Umberto                  declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
Leanza, assisted by Danilo Del Gaizo) Ð application for a            administrative provisions necessary in order to comply
declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations          with Council Directive 92/74/EEC of 22 September 1992
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with               widening the scope of Directive 81/851/EEC on the
Commission Directive 94/2/EC of 21 January 1994                      approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation
implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to              or administrative action relating to veterinary medicinal
energy labelling of household electric refrigerators,                products and laying down additional provisions on
freezers and their combinations (OJ L 45, 17.2.1994, p. 1),          homeopathic veterinary medicinal products (OJ L 297,
or at least by failing to notify those provisions to the             13.10.1992, p. 12), the French Republic has failed to fulfil
Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its            its obligations under that Directive Ð the Court (Sixth
obligations under that Directive Ð the Court (Fifth                  Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the                  Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), G.
Chamber, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann                  Hirsch and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-
(Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-               General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on                12 February 1998, in which it:
12 February 1998, in which it:
                                                                     1. declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed
                                                                          period the laws, regulations and administrative
1. declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed               provisions necessary in order to comply with Council
     period the laws, regulations and administrative                      Directive 92/74/EEC of 22 September 1992 widening
     provisions necessary to comply with Commission                       the scope of Directive 81/851/EEC on the
     Directive 94/2/EC of 21 January 1994 implementing                    approximation of provisions laid down by law,
     Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy                    regulation or administrative action relating to
     labelling of househould electric refrigerators, freezers             veterinary medicinal products and laying down
     and their combinations, the Italian Republic has failed              additional provisions on homeopathic veterinary
     to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of that                    medicinal products, the French Republic has failed to
     Directive;                                                           fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph of
                                                                          Article 10(1) thereof;
2. orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                     2. orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.


18.12.1999            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 366/33
       Removal from the register of Case T-198/96 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-97/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/76)                                                         (1999/C 366/79)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 19 October 1999 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                   By order of 9 July 1999 the President of the Fifth Chamber of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                 the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
Case T-198/96: Christine Dalby v Commission of the European              ordered the removal from the register of Case T-97/98:
Communities.                                                             Maurizio Gastaldello v Committee of the Regions of the
                                                                         European Union.
(1) OJ No C 54 of 22.2.1997.
                                                                         (1) OJ No C 258 of 15.8.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case T-218/96 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/77)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-78/99 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/80)
                   (Language of the case: French)
By order of 19 October 1999 the President of the First                                    (Language of the case: English)
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-218/96: Paul Hodson v Commission of the European                  By order of 13 October 1999, the President of the First
Communities.                                                             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                         Case T-78/99: Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale Elder v
(1) OJ No C 54 of 22.2.1997.                                             Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ No C 174 of 19.6.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case T-59/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/78)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-162/99 R
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/81)
By order of 13 October 1999, the President of the Fifth
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                                   (Language of the case: French)
the register of Case T-59/98: Honeywell Inc. v Commission of
the European Communities.
                                                                         By order of 22 October 1999, the President of the Court of
                                                                         First Instance of the European Communities has ordered
(1) OJ No C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                            the removal from the register of Case T-162/99 R: Luigia
                                                                         Dricot-Daniele, Patricia De Palma and Claudine Hamptaux v
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 December 2000 in Case T-113/99: The Galileo Company and Galileo International LLC v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Admissibility — Person individually concerned)

text:
21.4.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 118/37
5)      The Italian Republic and the French Republic shall bear their            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
        own costs in Case T-79/96 R.
6)      The French Republic shall bear its own costs in Case                                     of 15 December 2000
        T-260/97 R.
                                                                           in Case T-113/99: The Galileo Company and Galileo
                                                                              International LLC v Council of the European Union (1)
(1) OJ C 233 of 10.8.1996, C 357 of 22.11.1997 and C 327 of
      24.10.1998.
                                                                           (Action for annulment — Admissibility — Person individu-
                                                                                ally concerned)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/104)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                           In Case T-113/99: The Galileo Company, established in
                        of 27 November 200                                 Swindon, Wiltshire, United Kingdom, and Galileo International
                                                                           LLC, established in Rosemount, Illinois, United States of
                                                                           America, represented by R. Plender QC and S. Masters,
in Case T-78/99 (92): Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale                   Barrister, instructed by K. Holmes and D. Austin, Solicitors,
     Elder v Commission of the European Communities (1)                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
                                                                           of Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill,
                                                                           supported by Amadeus Global Travel Distribution SA, estab-
(Taxation of costs — Indispensable expenses incurred for                   lished in Madrid, Spain, represented by M. Caballero Clavijo,
     the purposes of the proceedings — Litigation insurance)               of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                           at the offices of Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 2 Place Winston
                                                                           Churchill, against Council of the European Union (Agents:
                          (2001/C 118/103)                                 A. Lopes Sabino and M. Bishop), supported by Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities (Agent: F. Benyon) — application
                                                                           for partial annulment of Article 1(7)(b) of Council Regulation
                                                                           (EC) No 323/1999 of 8 February 1999 amending Council
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 on a code of conduct for
                                                                           computerised reservation systems (CRS) (OJ 1999 L 40, p. 1)
In Case T-78/99 (92): Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale                   — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed
Elder, residing in Dundee, United Kingdom, represented by                  of: A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
S. Crosby, Solicitor, 42 Rue du Taciturne, Brussels (Belgium)              H. Jung, Registrar, has given an order on 15 December 2000,
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                    the operative part of which is as follows:
U. Wölker and X. Lewis) — application for taxation of the
costs to be reimbursed by the defendant to the applicants
pursuant to the order for removal from the register made by                1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
the Court of First Instance on 13 October 1999 (Case T-78/99
Elder v Commission, not published in the ECR) — the Court
of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,             2.    The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those of the
President, N.J. Forwood and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,                         defendant.
Registrar, has given an order on 27 November 2000, the
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           3.    The interveners shall bear their own costs.
The application for taxation of costs is dismissed.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
( 1)  OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.


title: Removal from the register of Case T-519/93

text:
3 . 6 . 95         I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 137/37
The applicant further maintains that his probationary                   Removal from the register of Case T-5 19/93 ( J )
period did not proceed under normal conditions and that his                                 {■95/C 137/79 )
hierarchical superiors did not provide him with the specific
training essential for the performance of his employment,
nor even with the appropriate advice and necessary                               (Language of the case: English)
instructions . Consequently, they manifestly failed to fulfil
their duty to have regard for his welfare and interests .
                                                                   By order of 20 March 1995 the President of the Second
                                                                   Chamber (extended composition) of the Court of First
Lastly, the applicant asserts that there has been a manifest       Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
error of assessment, that the statement of reasons given is        from the register of Case T-5 19/93 : Comafrica SpA, Dole
inconsistent and that it is impossible to asses whether that       Fresh Fruit Europa Ltd & Co. and Dole Fresh Fruit
statement is well founded .                                        International Limited v. Council of the European Union and
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                   (!) OJ No C 188 , 10 . 7. 1993 .


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 April 1999 in Case C-405/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Bremen): Mövenpick Deutschland GmbH für das Gastgewerbe v Hauptzollamt Bremen (Combined nomenclature - Tariff heading 0802 - Dried walnut pieces temporarily stored at a temperature of -24 o C)

text:
17.7.1999               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 204/7
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-                  at the rate of ECU 43.09 per day of late payment from 1 April
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court, composed of                         1988 and, second, to pay the Commission the sum of
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch           ECU 60 000 by way of compensation for the damage suffered
(Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers), G.F. Mancini, J.C.                   — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet
Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón                   (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann, C. Gulmann
and M. Wathelet, Judges, Advocate General: N. Fennelly,                     D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón, Judges; Advocate General: A. La
Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator —                   Pergola; Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has
has given a judgment on 27 April 1999 in which it held that:                given a judgment on 27 April 1999, in which it:
1. On a proper construction of Article 11A(3)(b) of the Sixth               1. Orders SNUA Srl to pay to the Commission of the European
    Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                           Communities the sum of EUR 195 397 together with interest
    harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to                   at a rate of EUR 43.09 per day of late payment as from 1 April
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                   1988 until final settlement of the debt;
    basis of assessment, the terms ‘rebates’ and ‘price discounts’
    cannot be applied to reductions covering the whole cost of              2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
    supplying redemption goods.
                                                                            3. Orders SNUA Srl to pay the costs.
2. On a proper construction of Article 5(6) of the Sixth Directive
    77/388, the application by an oil company of goods which are            (1) OJ C 131 of 26.4.1997.
    disposed of to a purchaser of fuel in exchange for vouchers which
    he has obtained in varying quantifies, depending on the volume
    of fuel purchased, on payment of the full retail price for fuel from
    the pump — under a sales promotion scheme such as that in
    issue in the main proceedings — must, where the goods are not
    of small value, be treated as a supply for consideration within the
    meaning of that provision.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.                                                                               (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 28 April 1999
                                                                            in Case C-405/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            by the Finanzgericht Bremen): Mövenpick Deutschland
                                                                              GmbH für das Gastgewerbe v Hauptzollamt Bremen (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            (Combined nomenclature — Tariff heading 0802 — Dried
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                  walnut pieces temporarily stored at a temperature of −24 oC)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/13)
                          of 27 April 1999
in Case C-69/97 Commission of the European Communi-                                             (Language of the case: German)
                         ties v SNUA Srl (1)
                                                                            (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
           (Arbitration clause — Breach of contract)
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                          (1999/C 204/12)                                   In Case C-405/97, reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty by the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) for a
                                                                            preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                         between Mövenpick Deutschland GmbH für das Gastgewerbe v
                                                                            Hauptzollamt Bremen, on the interpretation of tariff heading
                                                                            0802 of the Combined Nomenclature, in the version contained
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2551/93 of
                   in the European Court Reports)                           10 August 1993, amending Annex I to Council Regulation
                                                                            (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature
In Case C-69/97: Commission of the European Communities                     and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1993 L 241, p. 1)
(Agents: Paolo Stancanelli and Jean-Francis Pasquier, assisted              and on the interpretation of Article 522(3) of Commission
by Alberto Dal Ferro) v SNUA Srl, a company incorporated in                 Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down
Pordenone (Italy), represented by Andrea Guarino, of the Rome               provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
Bar, and Ezio Trampus — application by the Commission of                    No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ
the European Communities under Article 181 of the EC Treaty                 1993 L 253, p. 1) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of
for an order requiring SNUA Srl, first, to reimburse an advance             P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward
payment of ECU 195 397 made by the Commission for the                       and L. Sevón, Judges, Advocate General: A. Saggio, Registrar:
completion of an integrated system for the collection and                   R. Grass — has given a judgment on 28 April 1999, in which
recycling of solid waste at a private plant, together with interest         it held that:
 ---pagebreak--- C 204/8                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           17.7.1999
On a proper interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature, in the                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
version contained in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EEC) No
2551/93 of 10 August 1993 amending Annex I to Council
                                                                                (First Chamber)
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomencla-
ture and on the common customs tariff, dried walnut pieces, imported
from a non-member country, which have been stored in the                                               of 28 April 1999
Community at a temperature of −24 oC and which, after thawing
out, arc cleared through customs to be admitted into free circulation
                                                                           in Case C-250/98: Commission of the European Communi-
must be classified under tariff heading 0802.
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
(1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
                                                                                transpose Directive 89/594/EEC)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/15)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (First Chamber)                                                      (Language of the case: French)
                           of 28 April 1999
in Case C-31/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
the Finanzgericht München): Peter Luksch v Hauptzollamt                                         in the European Court Reports)
                               Weiden (1)
(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —                        In Case C-250/98: Commission of the European Communities
Fruit and vegetables — Importation of sour cherries from a                 (Agents: Antonio Caeiro and Bernard Mongin) v French
third country — Levy of a countervailing charge equal to the               Republic (Agents: Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and Anne de
difference between the minimum price and the import price                  Bourgoing) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
                — Applicability to spoiled goods)                          adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                           necessary to comply with Council Directive 89/594/EEC of 30
                            (1999/C 204/14)                                October 1989 amending Directives 75/362/EEC, 77/452/EEC,
                                                                           78/686/EEC, 78/1026/EEC and 80/154/EEC relating to the
                   (Language of the case: German)                          mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence
                                                                           of formal qualifications as doctors, nurses responsible for
                                                                           general care, dental practitioners, veterinary surgeons and
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     midwives, together with Directives 75/363/EEC, 78/1027/EEC
                    in the European Court Reports)                         and 80/155/EEC concerning the coordination of provisions
In Case C-31/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating
the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht München (Finance Court,               to the activities of doctors, veterinary surgeons and midwives
Munich), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings              (OJ 1989 L 341, p. 19), the French Republic has failed to fulfil
pending before that court between Peter Luksch and Hauptzoll-              its obligations under Directive 89/594 — the Court (First
amt Weiden — on the interpretation of Article 1 of Com-                    Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
mission Regulation (EC) No 1395/94 of 17 June 1994                         D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-
establishing a minimum import price for sour cherries (OJ                  Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
1994 L 152, p. 31) and Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)                 given a judgment on 28 April 1999, in which it:
No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987                     1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
L 256, p. 1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
2551/93 of 10 August 1993 (OJ 1993 L 241, p. 1), and in                        Directive 89/594/EEC of 30 October 1989 amending Direc-
particular Note 1 to Chapter 8 of the Combined Nomenclature                    tives 75/362/EEC, 77/452/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/1026/EEC
— the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rappor-                     and 80/154/EEC relating to the mutual recognition of diplomas,
teur), President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón,                  certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications as doctors,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                   nurses responsible for general care, dental practitioners, veterinary
given a judgment on 28 April 1999, in which it has ruled:                      surgeons and midwives, together with Directives
                                                                               75/363/EEC,78/1027/EEC and 80/155/EEC concerning the
Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1395/94 of 17 June                  coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or
1994 establishing a minimum import price for sour cherries must be             administrative action relating to the activities of doctors, vet-
interpreted as meaning that a countervailing charge may not be levied          erinary surgeons and midwives, the French Republic has failed to
in respect of sour cherries released for free circulation within the           fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Community at a low price, where their low price is attributable to
circumstances beyond the control of the importer and unconnected           2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs
with the origin of the goods, such as a significant and unexpected
deterioration of the fruit.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
( 1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.


title: Action brought on 24 December 1998 by Claude Willeme against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-211/98)

text:
C 71/32              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.3.1999
In support of his claims, the applicant states that there has      In respect of that decision, the applicant pleads:
been misuse of power inasmuch as the Staff Regulations
have been infringed.
                                                                   Ð infringement of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations, in
                                                                       so far as the conditions for the application of that
(1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998, p. 30.
                                                                       article are not satisfied in the present case;
                                                                   Ð breach of the duty to state reasons;
                                                                   Ð breach of the principle of proportionality and the duty
Action brought on 24 December 1998 by Claude Willeme                   to have regard for the welfare of officials;
     against Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-211/98)
                                                                   Ð breach of the interest of the service and the principle
                        (1999/C 71/60)                                 of     good    management        practice    and    sound
                                                                       administration;
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   Ð breach of the principle of non-discrimination, in so far
An action against the Commission of the European                       as facts of the type alleged have never resulted in a
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      decision to suspend an official, which is limited to
Instance of the European Communities on 24 December                    much more serious facts;
1998 by Claude Willeme, residing in Brussels, represented
by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the              Ð breach of the rights of the defence.
offices of the Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
Cessange.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Action brought on 29 December 1998 by Neptune Orient
Ð annul the appointing authority's decision of
                                                                   Lines Limited against the Commission of the European
    16 December 1998 to suspend the applicant from his
                                                                                Communities
    duties and to withhold a sum equal to one half of his
    basic salary from his remuneration with immediate                                     (Case T-212/98)
    effect;
                                                                                (1999/C 71/61)
Ð order the European Commission to pay damages by
    way of compensation for the material and the                                  (Language of the case: English)
    non-material loss suffered as a result of the unlawful
    nature of the decision of 16 December 1998; those              An action against the Commission of the European
    damages are provisionally assessed at EUR 31 001;              Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 29 December
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                            1998 by Neptune Orient Lines Limited, represented by
                                                                   John Pheasant, Nicholas Bromfield and Matthew Levitt of
                                                                   Lovell White Durrant, Solicitors, and Alexandre R. M.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Nourry, Solicitor, and Marleen J. J. Van Kerckhove of
                                                                   Clifford Chance with an address for service in
The contested decision was adopted in the context of               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11, rue
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant           Goethe.
when, following an investigation carried out by the Unit
on Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF), the                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
administration of the defendant institution learned that his
wife had been awarded an employment contract with a
contractor of the Commission and had been paid for six             (a) annul the decision of 16 September 1998 relating to a
months notwithstanding the fact that she only worked for               proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC
two weeks. The appointing authority considered that it                 Treaty (Case No IV/35.134-Trans-Atlantic Conference
was apparent from the information gathered by the                      Agreement);
UCLAF that the applicant's wife had been awarded that
contract because of the post held by the applicant at the
Security Office in Brussels. It therefore decided to initiate      (b) in any event, annul the fine imposed on it or reduce
the disciplinary proceedings and to adopt the contested                such fine by the amount considered appropriate by the
decision.                                                              Court in all the circumstances;


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2001 in Case C-389/98 P: Hans Gevaert v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Officials — Request for review of classification in grade — Action — Expiry of time-limits — New fact — Inequality of treatment)

text:
2.6.2001                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 161/1
                                                                          I
                                                                    (Information)
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       2.    Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities of 26 August 1996 rejecting Mr Gevaert’s
                                                                                request for a review of his classification in grade;
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                              3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear
                         of 11 January 2001                                         all the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance
                                                                                and the Court of Justice.
in Case C-389/98 P: Hans Gevaert v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)                                  (1) OJ C 397, 19.12.1998.
(Appeals — Officials — Request for review of classification
in grade — Action — Expiry of time-limits — New fact —
                       Inequality of treatment)
                           (2001/C 161/01)                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                of 11 January 2001
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        in Case C-403/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                    in the European Court Reports)                            the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Cagliari, Italy): Azienda
                                                                              Agricola Monte Arcosu Srl v Regione Autonoma della
                                                                              Sardegna, Organismo Comprensoriale No 24 della Sardeg-
In Case C-389/98 P: Hans Gevaert, an official of the Com-                     na, Ente Regionale per l’Assistenza Tecnica in Agricoltura
mission of the European Communities, residing in Merelbeke                                                  (ERSAT) (1)
(Belgium), represented by N. Lhoëst — application for an
appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance of the                (Agriculture — Farmer practising farming as his main
European Communities (First Chamber) of 19 August 1998 in                          occupation — Concept — Private limited company)
Case T-160/97 Gevaert v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-
465 and II-1363, seeking to have that order set aside:
                                                                                (2001/C 161/02)
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valses-
ia, C. Berardis-Kayser and F. Duvieusart-Clotuche) — the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting as                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
President of the Fifth Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rappor-
teur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 January                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
2001, in which it:                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
1.    Sets aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 19 August        In Case C-403/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
      1998 in Case T-160/97 Gevaert v Commission;                             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale Civile


title: Case C-396/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof (Douanekamer) te Amsterdam by judgment of that Court of 6 November 2002 in the case of DFDS B.V. against Head of the Rotterdam Customs District

text:
C 7/14                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        11.1.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van                 Are vehicles which are designed for off-highway use and
Eerste Aanleg (Antwerpen) by judgment of that Court of                  intended for the transport and dumping of materials, and, in
4 November 2002 in the case of NV Transport service                     particular, are equipped for that purpose with an intricate,
     against 1. The Belgian State, and 2. BVBA Bea Cars                 versatile and precise tipping function, excluded from the scope
                                                                        of the term ‘dumper’ contained in heading 8704 10 of the
                                                                        CCT?
                       (Case C-395/02)
                         (2003/C 7/24)
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the La Cour d’appel
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  de Bruxelles by order of that Court of 6 November 2002
European Communities by judgment of the Rechtbank van                   in the case of 1. Clinique la Ramee, a non-profit-making
Eerste Aanleg (Court of First Instance) of 4 November 2002,             associationy, and 2. Winterthur Europe Assurance SA
received at the Court Registry on 11 November 2002, for a               against 1. Jean-Pierre Riehl, and 2. the Council of the
preliminary ruling in the case of NV Transport service against                                      European Union
1. The Belgian State, and 2. BVBA Bea Cars on the following
question:
                                                                                (Case C-397/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/26)
Does the principle of the neutrality of value added tax preclude
a Member State from claiming additional VAT from a taxable
person which has issued an invoice, correctly or otherwise, in
accordance with the VAT exemption applicable to intra-
Community supplies (Article 39a of the BTW-Wetboek                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(Belgian VAT Code)) where it is evident that the VAT has been           European Communities by order of the La Cour d’appel de
paid by the end user and transferred to the Member State by             Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels) of 6 November 2002,
the person who drew up the invoice issued to that end user?             received at the Court Registry on 11 November 2002, for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the case of 1. Clinique la Ramee, a
                                                                        non-profit-making associationy, and 2. Winterthur Europe
                                                                        Assurance SA against 1. Jean-Pierre Riehl, and 2. the Council
                                                                        of the European Union on the following question:
                                                                        Must Article 85a of the Staff Regulations of officials of the
                                                                        European Communities, as laid down by Articles 2 and 3 of
                                                                        Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1) of the Council
                                                                        of 29 February 1968 and by the regulations amending that
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof                   regulation, be interpreted as conferring on the Communities
(Douanekamer) te Amsterdam by judgment of that Court                    the right to claim from a third party liable for the death of an
of 6 November 2002 in the case of DFDS B.V. against                     official reimbursement in full of the survivor’s pension paid to
          Head of the Rotterdam Customs District                        the surviving spouse pursuant to Articles 79 and 79a of those
                                                                        Staff Regulations, although the legislation applicable to the
                                                                        right to receive payment of compensation for the damage
                                                                        provides that the right to a survivor’s pension is unconnected
                       (Case C-396/02)                                  with the obligation of the perpetrator of a wrongful act to
                                                                        compensate in full for the damage, and although the damage
                                                                        suffered by the surviving husband as a result of the loss of the
                         (2003/C 7/25)                                  deceased wife’s income is less than the amount of the survivor’s
                                                                        pension paid to him?
                                                                        (1 ) Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials
European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof                          and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the
                                                                             European Communities and instituting special measures tempor-
(Douanekamer) te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of
                                                                             arily applicable to officials of the Commission (English special
Appeal — Customs Chamber) of 6 November 2002, received                       edition: Series-I 68(I) P. 30).
at the Court Registry on 11 November 2002, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of DFDS B.V. against Head of the Rotterdam
Customs District on the following question:


title: Case C-285/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Minden by order of that Court of 26 July 2002 in the case of Edeltraud Elsner-Lakeberg against Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

text:
C 247/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12.10.2002
2.     If so, can such an objection be raised not only by the              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
       authority of destination but also by the authority of               Treviso, Prima Sezione by order of that Court of 26 June
       dispatch?                                                           2002 in the case of Bellio F. lli S.r.l. against Prefettura di
                                                                                Treviso
3.     If so, is the authority of dispatch entitled to base its
       assessment of whether the planned recovery of the waste
       at the place of destination is compatible with health and
       environmental imperatives on the standards applicable in
       the State of dispatch even where they are higher than the                                   (Case C-286/02)
       standards applicable in the State of destination?
4.     Under the second indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation
       No 259/93, can an objection to the shipment of waste                                        (2002/C 247/08)
       for recovery be raised on the ground that the planned
       recovery contravenes national laws and regulations relat-
       ing to environmental protection, public order, public
       safety or health protection?
5.     If so, can the authority of dispatch raise such an objection
       on the ground that the recovery contravenes national
       laws and regulations in force at the place of dispatch?
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Treviso,
                                                                           Prima Sezione (District Court, Treviso, First Chamber) of
                                                                           26 June 2002, received at the Court Registry on 5 August
                                                                           2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bellio F. lli S.r.l.
                                                                           against Prefettura di Treviso on the following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richt Minden by order of that Court of 26 July 2002                        1.   Are the first indent of Article 2(2) of Council Decision
in the case of Edeltraud Elsner-Lakeberg against Land                           2000/766 ( 1) and Article 1(1) of Commission Decision
                       Nordrhein-Westfalen                                      2001/9 ( 2), read together with the other Community rules
                                                                                on which those provisions are based, to be interpreted as
                          (Case C-285/02)                                       meaning that the accidental presence of an unforeseen or
                                                                                prohibited substance in fish flour used in the production
                                                                                of feed-stuffs for animals other than ruminants may be
                          (2002/C 247/07)                                       considered both legally and materially acceptable and
                                                                                that, accordingly, traders are allowed a reasonable margin
                                                                                of error?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Minden (Administrative Court, Minden) of 26 July 2002,                     2.   In the affirmative, in the light of the principle of
received at the Court Registry on 2 August 2002, for a                          proportionality and the principle of precaution, and in
preliminary ruling in the case of Edeltraud Elsner-Lakeberg                     consideration of the Community provisions applicable in
against Land Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following question:                     the domains in which reference is made to accidental
                                                                                contamination of food-industry products and indications
                                                                                are given of relevant margins of error, does an accidental
Is it compatible with Article 141 EC in conjunction with                        contamination of 0.1 %, and in any case of not more
Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 ( 1) on the                    than 0,5 %, of fragments of mammalian bone in fish flour
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to                      intended for the production of feed-stuffs for animals
the application of the principle of equal pay for men and                       other than ruminants warrant the adoption of a draconian
women that men and women teachers, part-time as well as                         sanction such as the complete destruction of that fish
full-time, who are officials in the Land North-Rhine Westphalia                 flour?
are not granted remuneration for excess hours worked if that
additional work does not exceed three teaching periods in the
calendar month?
                                                                           3.   Does the exclusion of any margin of error in relation to
                                                                                the presence of the substances mentioned in the preceding
( 1) OJ L 45, p. 19.
                                                                                questions amount to the introduction of a technical
                                                                                standard within the meaning of Directive 83/189 ( 3) (as
                                                                                amended) which would have to be notified in advance to
                                                                                the European Commission?


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling made by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, by order of that court of 2 October 1998 in the cases of 1. Metallgesellschaft Limited, 2. Metallgesellschaft AG and Metallgesellschaft Handel & Beteiligungen AG, 3. The Metal and Commodity Company Limited individually against Commissioners of Inland Revenue and H. M. Attorney General (Case C-397/98) (1999/C 1/12)

text:
4.1.1999              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 1/7
retain the right to deduct tax charged on goods and                    and, in particular, with Articles 6, 52, 58 and/or
services where, by reason of circumstances beyond his                  73(b) of the EC Treaty for the legislation of a
control, he has not made use of those goods and services               Member State to permit a group income election
for the purpose of carrying out taxable transactions.                  (allowing distributions to be paid by a subsidiary
                                                                       to its parent without accounting for advance
                                                                       corporation tax (ACT')) only where both the
                                                                       subsidiary and parent are resident in that Member
According to that principle, does a taxable person also                State?
retain the right to deduct tax if he does in fact use the
goods or services to carry out (leasing) transactions but,
following a change in the law, is no longer entitled, after
acquiring the goods or services, to opt to waive the tax           2.  If the answer to Question 1 is No', do the
exemption for the transactions carried out with them, and              above-mentioned provisions of the EC Treaty give
so cannot in fact carry out any taxable transactions?                  rise to a restitutionary right to a resident subsidiary
                                                                       of a parent company resident in another Member
                                                                       State and/or the said parent to claim a sum of money
                                                                       by way of interest on the ACT which the subsidiary
In such a case, where there is a subsequent change in                  paid on the basis that the national laws did not allow
circumstances, does the right to deduct tax also continue              it to make a group income election, or can such a
to exist if, under national law, the tax assessments were              sum only be claimed, if at all, by way of an action
allowed to be subject to a subsequent review, enabling a               for damages pursuant to the principles laid down by
quick tax assessment to be made solely on the basis of                 the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-46/93 and
information supplied by the taxable person, but giving the             C-48/93 Brasserie du Pecheur SA v. Federal Republic
revenue authority the right to correct the tax assessment              of Germany and R v. Secretary of State of Transport
in every respect on the basis of factual and legal                     Ex Parte Factortame and Others [1996] ECR I-1029
considerations?                                                        and R v. Secretary of State for Social Security ex
                                                                       parte Eunice Sutton (2) [1997] ECR I-2163 and in
                                                                       either case is the national court obliged to grant a
(1) [1998] ECR I-17.
(2) [1996] ECR I-857.                                                  remedy even if under national law interest cannot be
                                                                       awarded (whether directly or by way of restitution or
                                                                       damages) on principal sums which are no longer
                                                                       owing to the plaintiff?
                                                                   3.  In the circumstances set out in the Order for
                                                                       Reference is it consistent with the above mentioned
Reference for a preliminary ruling made by the High
                                                                       provisions of the EC Treaty for the authorities of one
Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division,
                                                                       Member State to deny any tax credit to a company
by order of that court of 2 October 1998 in the cases of
                                                                       resident in another Member State when it grants such
1. Metallgesellschaft Limited, 2. Metallgesellschaft AG
                                                                       credits to resident companies and to companies
and Metallgesellschaft Handel & Beteiligungen AG, 3. The
                                                                       resident in certain other Member States by virtue of
Metal and Commodity Company Limited individually
                                                                       the terms of its double taxation conventions with
against Commissioners of Inland Revenue and H. M.
                                                                       those other Member States?
                       Attorney General
                       (Case C-397/98)
                        (1999/C 1/12)                              4.  If the answer to Question 3 above is No', and was
                                                                       the first Member State at all material times obliged to
                                                                       make a tax credit available to such company on the
                                                                       same terms as to resident companies or as to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 companies resident in Member States with provision
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                  for such credits in their double taxation conventions?
Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, of
2 October 1998, which was received at the Court Registry
on 6 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the cases
of 1. Metallgesellschaft Limited, 2. Metallgesellschaft AG         5.  Is a Member State entitled to plead in answer to such
and Metallgesellschaft Handel & Beteiligungen AG, 3.                   a claim for restitution, tax credit or damages, that the
The Metal and Commodity Company Limited individually                   Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover, or that the
against Commissioners of Inland Revenue and H. M.                      Plaintiffs' claim should be reduced, on the grounds
Attorney General, on the following questions:                          that, despite the terms of the national statute which
                                                                       prevented them from doing so as a matter of national
                                                                       law they ought to have made a group income
                                                                       election, or claimed a tax credit and to have appealed
1.    In the circumstances set out in the Order for                    to the Commissioners and, if necessary, the Courts
      Reference (1), is it consistent with Community law               against the decision of the Inspector of Taxes refusing
 ---pagebreak--- C 1/8                   EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.1.1999
       the election or claim, relying upon the primacy and                 services is to be concluded, where such services exceed
       direct effect of the provisions of Community law?                   the threshold laid down by the relevant directives.
                                                                      (1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC, (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54).
(1) Application of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988,         (2) Pubblica Amministrazione (Public authority).
    and in particular of the United Kingdom tax rules relating to
    the payments of dividends by the United Kingdom resident
    companies whose parent companies are resident in other
    Member States.
(2) Case C-66/95.
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                      Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) by order of that
                                                                      court of 27 August 1998 in the case of Finanzamt Goslar
                                                                                v. Brigitte Breitsohl
                                                                                (Case C-400/98)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                                             (1999/C 1/14)
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia, Milan, by
order of that court of 11 June 1998, in the case of Ordine
degli Architetti delle Province di Milano e Lodi and Piero            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
de Angelis, Architect, v. Comune di Milano, SocietaÁ                  European       Communities        by     an   order    of     the
Pirelli, Milano Centrale Servizi SpA and Ente Autonomo                Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 27 August
                         Teatro alla Scala                            1998, which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                      9 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                         (Case C-399/98)                              Finanzamt Goslar v. Brigitte Breitsohl on the following
                                                                      questions:
                          (1999/C 1/13)
                                                                      1. According to the case-law of the Court of Justice of
                                                                           the European Communities (judgment in Case
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     C-110/94 (1) INZO), even the very first investment
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale                          expenditure incurred for the purposes of a business
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia, Milan,                          may be regarded as an economic activity within the
(Regional Administrative Court for Lombardy) of 11 June                    meaning of Article 4 of Council Directive
1998, which was received at the Court Registry on                          77/388/EEC (2). The tax authority has to take account
9 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                   of the business person's declared intention in this
Ordine degli Architetti delle Province di Milano e Lodi                    regard. The status of taxable person accorded on that
and Piero de Angelis, Architect, v. Comune di Milano,                      basis cannot, in principle, be withdrawn retroactively
SocietaÁ Pirelli, Milano Centrale Servizi SpA and Ente                     on account of certain events having or having not
Autonomo Teatro alla Scala, on the following questions:                    occurred (principle of legal certainty). This also applies
                                                                           to the deductions relating to the investment
                                                                           transactions.
1. Whether or not the State and regional legislation                       According to those principles, is the right to deduct
     which allows a builder (who holds a building permit                   tax (Article 17 of Directive 77/388/EEC) on setting
     or approved development plan) to carry out                            up' expenditure to be accorded on the basis of the
     development works directly, in total or partial                       intention to take up economic activity leading to
     discharge of the amount owed (Article 11 of Law                       taxable transactions even where the revenue authority
     No 10/77, Articles 28 and 31 of Law No 1150 of                        is already aware, when the first tax assessment is
     17 August 1942, Articles 8 and 12 of Law No 60 of                     made, that the intended economic activity leading to
     the Lombardy Region of 5 December 1977), is                           taxable transactions was not actually taken up?
     contrary to Council Directive 93/37/EEC (1), in the
     light of the strict tendering principles imposed on the
     Member States by Community law in relation to all                If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
     public works of a value of ECU 5 million or more.
                                                                      2. In the case of a supply of buildings or parts thereof
                                                                           and of the land on which they stand, can the option
                                                                           for taxation be restricted to the buildings and parts
2. Whether, notwithstanding the principles concerning
                                                                           thereof?
     tendering referred to above, agreements between the
     administration and a private person (generally allowed
     by Article 11 of Law No 241 of 7 August 1990) may                (1) [1996] ECR I-857.
     be regarded as compatible with Community law in                  (2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
     areas in which the procedure is that the P.A. (2)
     chooses a party with whom a contract for such


4.12.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 352/29
The applicant claims that the Court, rejecting all contrary            The applicant claims that the Court should:
applications, objections or inferences, should:
                                                                       1. Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
— declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its               administrative provisions necessary to comply with
    obligations under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April
    1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1), in that it
    has omitted to adopt the measures necessary in order to:               (a) Council Directive 96/51/EC (1) of 23 July 1996
                                                                                amending Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives
    — apply the provisions of that directive to all contracts                   in feedingstuffs;
         concluded between consumers and sellers or suppliers;
                                                                           (b) Directive 96/93/EC (2) of 17 December 1996 on the
    — transpose the third sentence of Article 5 of that                         certification of animals and animal products;
         directive;
    — transpose in its entirety Article 6(2) of that directive;            or in any event by failing to communicate such provisions,
                                                                           the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                           the Treaty and those directives;
    — transpose in its entirety Article 7(3) of that directive;
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                         2. Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission claims that the Italian legislation transposing
Directive 93/13/EEC does not fulfil all the requirements of that       Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
directive. In particular, the Commission asserts that the Italian      directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
Republic has committed the following infringements:                    each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
                                                                       required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
                                                                       their transposition. That time-limit expired without the Italian
— the scope of application of the national legislation is more         Republic having brought into force the necessary provisions
    restricted than that of the directive;                             in order to comply with the directive referred to in the
                                                                       Commission’s application.
— the third sentence of Article 5 of the directive has not been
    transposed;
— Articles 6(2) and 7(3) of the directive have not been                (1) OJ 1996 L 235, p. 39.
    transposed in their entirety.                                      (2) OJ 1997 L 13, p. 18.
(1) OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-336/98 (1)
Action brought on 12 October 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                                        (1999/C 352/49)
                         (Case C-395/99)                               By order of 21 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       the register of Case-336/98 (reference for a preliminary
                         (1999/C 352/48)                               ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la
                                                                       Lombardia): Agenzia R di Recapito Srl v Poste Italiane SpA
                                                                       and Rinaldi Angenzia di Recapito Srl.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 October
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       (1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.
represented by Francesco P. Ruggeri Laderchi, of its Legal
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.


title: Case C-11/14 P: Appeal brought on 13 January 2014 by Associazione sportiva Taranto calcio Srl against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2013 in Case T-476/13 Associazione sportiva Taranto calcio Srl v Italian Republic

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/2

         Appeal brought on 13 January 2014 by Associazione sportiva Taranto calcio Srl against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2013 in Case T-476/13 Associazione sportiva Taranto calcio Srl v Italian Republic
   (Case C-11/14 P)
   2014/C 245/02
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Associazione sportiva Taranto calcio Srl (represented by: N. Russo, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: Italian Republic
   By order of 30 April 2014, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 28 March 1996 in Case T-40/95: V v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Disciplinary measures - Removal from post - Reasons - Aggravating circumstances)

text:
No C 133/22            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4 . 5 . 96
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              notice of initiation of anti-dumping proceedings concerning
                       of 28 March 1996                              imports of certain magnetic disks ( 3,5" microdisks )
                                                                     originating in Canada , Indonesia, Macao and Thailand ( OJ
in Case T-40/95 : V v. Commission of the European                    No C 84 , 1995 , p . 4 ) — the Court of First Instance ( Third
                        Communities ( 1 )                            Chamber, Enlarged Composition ), composed of C. P. Briët,
(Officials — Disciplinary measures — Removal from post —             President, B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D.
           Reasons — Aggravating circumstances)                      Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                         ( 96/C 133/50 )                             14 March 1996 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                     follows :
               (Language of the case: French)                        1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-40/95 : V, a former official of the Commission of          2 . The applicants shall bear the costs.
the European Communities, residing at Arlon ( Belgium ),
represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                (M OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
Sari , 1 Rue Glesener, v . Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —
application for annulment of the decision of the
Commission of 18 January 1995 removing the applicant
                                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
from his post without reduction or withdrawal of
entitlement to retirement pension — the Court of First                                     of 11 March 1996
Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen,                in Case T-195/95 : Guérin Automobiles v. Commission of
President, and R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi — Judges;                           the European Communities ( 1 )
L. Kintzelé-Prussen, Legal Secretary, for the Registrar, has
                                                                     (Competition — Actions against Community institutions
given a judgment on 28 March 1996 , in which it:
                                                                     for failure to act and for damages — Objection of
                                                                                inadmissibility)
1 . annuls the decision of the Commission of 18 January
     1 995 removing the applicant from his post;                                               ( 96/C 133/52 )
2 , orders the Commission to bear all of the costs, including                        (Language of the case: French)
    those incurred in the proceedings for interim
    measures .
                                                                     In Case T-195/95 : Guérin Automobiles, a company
                                                                     incorporated under French law, in liquidation, established
C ) OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .                                       at Alençon ( France ), represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux,
                                                                     of the Paris and Brussels Bars, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue
                                                                     Béatrix de Bourbon, v. Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities ( Agents : Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz
                                                                     and Guy Charrier ) — application for a declaration that the
                                                                     Commission has failed to notify complaints against Nissan
    ORTDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            France SA, alternatively for damages — the Court of First
                                                                     Instance ( Second Chamber, extended composition ),
                       of 14 March 1996
                                                                     composed of H. Kirschner, President, and B. Vesterdorf,
in Case T- 1 34/95 : Dysan Magnetics Ltd and Review                  C. W. Bellamy, A. Kalogeropoulos and A. Potocki, Judges;
Magnetics ( Macao ) Ltd v. Commission of the European                H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 11 March 1996 , the
                        Communities ( ! )                            operative part of which is as follows :
(Action for annulment — Notice of initiation of
        anti-dumping proceedings — Inadmissibility)                  I . the application is dimissed as inadmissible in so far as it
                                                                         seeks a declaration of failure to act on the part of the
                          ( 96/C 133/51 )                                 Commission ;
               (Language of the case: English)                       2 , as regards the forms of order sought in relation to
                                                                         damages, the Court's decision on the objection of
                                                                         inadmissibility raised by the defendant is reserved for
In Case T- 1 34/95 : Dysan Magnetics Ltd, established in                  the final judgment;
Reading, United Kingdom, and Review Magnetics ( Macao )
Ltd, established in Macao, represented by Mark Clough                3,   the costs are reserved.
and Mark Brealey, Barristers, instructed by Rosenblatt,
Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                     (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, against
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
Nicholas Khan ) — application for the annulment of the


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 April 2005 in Case T-164/03 Ampafrance SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative trade mark comprising the word element ‘monBeBé’ — Earlier word marks bebe — Relative ground of refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 21 April 2005
   in Case T-164/03 Ampafrance SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative trade mark comprising the word element ‘monBeBé’ - Earlier word marks bebe - Relative ground of refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 155/29)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-164/03: Ampafrance SA, established in Cholet (France), represented by C. Bercial Arias, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. Rassat and A. Folliard-Monguiral), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance, being Johnson and Johnson GmbH, established in Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by D. von Schultz, lawyer — action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 March 2003 (Case R 220/2002-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Ampafrance SA and Johnson & Johnson GmbH — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, V. Tiili and O. Czúcz, Judges; J. Plingers Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

               3.

               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 2.08.2003.


title: Case T-225/00: Action brought on 28 August 2000 by Andrea Gaul against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
21.10.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 302/33
—     Excluding the fishing industry from the de minimis rule,           Action brought on 30 August 2000 by Porto di Venezia
      applicable in cases of State aid, amounts to failure to              scrl against Commission of the European Communities
      observe the principle of equal treatment as between the
      various sectors, at least where, as in the present case, the
      aid relates to social contributions charged by the State for                                 (Case T-228/00)
      the operation of services and not to investment costs
      freely incurred by the undertaking.
                                                                                (2000/C 302/77)
—     The modest scale of the applicant undertakings, their
      local nature and the damage which could be caused by
      repayment of the aid render unsustainable an argument
      claiming that the relief has an impact on trade between                                (Language of the case: Italian)
      Member States.
—     Article 87(3)(d) of the Treaty has been infringed inasmuch         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      as Chioggia and the Lagoon of Venice have special                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      cultural links with fishing that cannot be ignored.                European Communities on 30 August 2000 by Porto di
                                                                         Venezia scrl, represented by Francesco Munari, of the Genoa
                                                                         Bar.
(1) OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50.
(2) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the Commission decision of 25 November 1999
                                                                               on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of
                                                                               relief from social security contributions under Laws
                                                                               Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 in so far as it excludes from
Action brought on 28 August 2000 by Andrea Gaul                                Article 4 undertakings, such as the applicant, which find
  against the Commission of the European Communities                           themselves in circumstances identical to those of the
                                                                               undertakings mentioned in the aforementioned article,
                         (Case T-225/00)                                       and order the Commission to adopt any appropriate
                                                                               measure to comply with the judgment of this Court;
                         (2000/C 302/76)
                                                                         —     make any other order as the Court may see fit in order to
                                                                               ensure compliance with the judgment, as well as an order
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                               requiring the Commission to pay the costs incurred by
                                                                               the applicant.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 August 2000 by Andrea Gaul,
of Olching (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Christian Boetzkes, Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg (Federal Republic
of Germany).
                                                                         The decision being contested in this action is the same as
The applicant claims that the Court should annul, pursuant to            that in Case T-218/00 Cooperativa Mareazzurro and Others
Article 231 EC, the decision of the Commission of the                    v Commission and T-221/00 Casino Municipale di Venezia
European Communities of 29 May 2000 not to include the                   v Commission (1).
applicant’s name in the list of suitable candidates following the
conclusion of the procedure in open competition
COM/A/12/98, field 01 (law).                                             In support of its application, the applicant, an undertaking
                                                                         entrusted by the public authorities with running the berthing
                                                                         facilities at the port of Venice, makes the following claims:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         —     Infringement of Articles 87 and 88 EC and of Article 7(2)
The applicant took part in the European Commission’s open
                                                                               of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March
competition COM/A/12/98 in the field of law and was not
                                                                               1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of
awarded the necessary marks in order for her name to be
                                                                               Article 93 of the EC Treaty (2).
included in the list of suitable candidates. By her claim, she
asserts that the marks awarded cannot be justified. On the
contrary, she proved to a sufficient standard in the tests that          —     Misuse of powers inasmuch as a manifest error has been
she possessed the requisite knowledge and abilities.                           committed and treating it differently cannot be justified.
                                                                         —     Failure to state reasons.