title: Case C-181/01 P: Appeal brought on 25 April 2001 by N against the judgment delivered on 13 February 2001 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-2/00 N v Commission of the European Communities

text:
14.7.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 200/47
Appeal brought on 25 April 2001 by N against the                        —    Infringement of Articles 72 and 73 of the Staff Regu-
judgment delivered on 13 February 2001 by the Court                          lations and of Article 2(1) and (2) of the Rules: The Court
of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth                         of First Instance confined its examination to the issue of
Chamber) in Case T-2/00 N v Commission of the European                       transmission of the pathogen and took no account of the
                          Communities                                        view that the consequences of an accident are not limited
                                                                             to its immediate effects but may manifest themselves at a
                                                                             later time. Given that a particular pathology can derive
                        (Case C-181/01 P)                                    only from a specific cause, the proof lies in re ipsa: it is
                                                                             sufficient to link the contamination with its cause. The
                         (2001/C 200/83)                                     appellant observes, first, that the circumstances of his
                                                                             contamination were purely sexual. He then observes that
                                                                             even if the Court of First Instance’s argument that the CM
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 February                      did not treat the tearing of the condom as the cause of
2001 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-                 contamination or was not able to define such tearing
ties (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-2/00 N v Commission of the                    precisely were to be accepted — quod non — all the
European Communities was brought before the Court of                         other factual, chronological and medical circumstances
Justice of the European Communities on 25 April 2001 by N,                   described by the MC add up to a presumption such that
represented by the lawyer G. Durazzo.                                        the appellant’s infection can be classified as an accident.
                                                                             In any event, if the circumstances indicated do not
                                                                             constitute an ‘occurrence’ of the kind referred to in
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:                       Article 2(1) of the Rules, they do add up to a ‘factor’ of
                                                                             the kind mentioned in the alternative.
—     declare the appeal admissible and well founded,
—     set aside the contested judgment,
                                                                        —    Infringement of the rules governing the Commission’s
                                                                             non-contractual liability (Article 288 EC): the conduct
—     grant the form of order sought in the   application (1),
                                                                             and misconduct of the appointing authority, if only
                                                                             because of the fact that the disposal of the case was
—     order the Commission to pay the costs at both instances                thereby delayed, have had a psychological and stressful
      and to reimburse the Joint Sickness Insurance Fund costs               impact on the appellant to an extent greater than that
      incurred by the appellant.                                             which would be suffered by a person in perfect health or
                                                                             in proceedings in an ordinary staff case. Since the damage
                                                                             is not directly quantifiable, the appellant relies on a fair
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              assessment to be made by the Court.
—     Distortion of the opinion of the Medical Committee (MC)
      and infringement of the principle that measures must be
      construed according to their actual content; materially           (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
      incorrect findings conflicting with the content of the said
      opinion; infringement of the legal principle concerning
      the interpretation of complex measures; infringement of
      the principles expounded in case-law concerning the
      conditions applicable to the propriety, interpretation and
      content of opinions of medical committees; illogical
      and contradictory statement of reasons; breach of the
      presumption of good faith; infringement of Article 19 of
      the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the European
      Communities against the Risk of Accident and of Occu-
      pational Disease (‘the Rules’).
—     Infringement of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and of        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesger-
      Articles 2, 4, 7 and 19 of the Rules: in order to avoid           ichts Düsseldorf of 22 March 2001, in the case of Saatgut-
      defining the incident at issue as an accident (that is to say,        Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH against Werner Jäger
      HIV infection), the CM introduced into the debate the
      concepts of consent to risk and irresistible violence and
      the possibility of treating different conditions as being                                 (Case C-182/01)
      the same and not giving rise to invalidity. The Court of
      First Instance, after declaring that it had jurisdiction to
      examine whether the appointing authority, in endorsing                                   (2001/C 200/84)
      the opinion of the MC, which refers in its conclusions to
      the concept of ‘accident’, respected the meaning of the
      relevant provisions, did not conclude, as it should have          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      done, that those assessments were incorrect.                      European Communities by order of the Gerichtshof of


title: Judgment of the Court of 16 December 2015 in Case E-18/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2010/65/EU on reporting formalities for ships)

text:
               5.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 2/4

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 16 December 2015
   in Case E-18/15
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2010/65/EU on reporting formalities for ships)
   (2017/C 2/05)
   APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of the Act referred to at point 56l of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States and repealing Directive 2002/6/EC) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 16 December 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of the Act referred to at point 56l of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States and repealing Directive 2002/6/EC) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-312/11: Action brought on 20 June 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/19

         Action brought on 20 June 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-312/11)
   2011/C 226/36
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and C. Cattabriga, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not placing all employers under an obligation to make reasonable accommodation for all disabled persons, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation to implement, fully and correctly, Article 5 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               By not placing all employers under an obligation to make reasonable accommodation for all disabled persons, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation to implement, fully and correctly, Article 5 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.

               2.

               Article 5 of Directive 2000/78 places Member States under an obligation of general application to make reasonable accommodation to enable persons with a disability to have access to, to participate in, or to advance in employment, or to undergo training. Those measures must apply — consistently with the principle of proportionality and depending upon the specific circumstances — to all disabled persons and must concern all aspects of the employment relationship and all employers.

               3.

               There is no trace in the Italian legislation of measures implementing that general obligation. Admittedly, there are the provisions of Law No 68/1999, which, in a number of areas, offer a level of assurance and facilitation which is higher even than that required under Article 5 of Directive 2000/78. However, those provisions do not concern all disabled persons; they are not enforceable against all employers; they do not concern all the various aspects of the employment relationship; or they merely indicate an objective which requires subsequent implementing measures if it is to be achieved.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2005 in Case T-312/03 Wassen International Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Earlier national figurative mark comprising the word element ‘Selenium Spezial A-C-E’ — Application for Community word mark SELENIUM-ACE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 July 2005
   in Case T-312/03 Wassen International Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier national figurative mark comprising the word element ‘Selenium Spezial A-C-E’ - Application for Community word mark SELENIUM-ACE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 229/29)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-312/03: Wassen International Ltd, established in Leatherhead (United Kingdom), represented by M. Edenborough, Barrister, and S. Mayer, Solicitor, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: S. Laitinen and M. Capostagno), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal being Stroschein Gesundkost GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany) — ACTION for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2003 (Case R 121/2002-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Wassen International Ltd and Stroschein Gesundkost GmbH, — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, V. Tiili and O. Czúcz, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 264, 1.11.2003.


title: Case T-150/15: Order of the General Court of 15 March 2017 — EFB v Commission

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/61

         Order of the General Court of 15 March 2017 — EFB v Commission
   (Case T-150/15) (1)

   (2017/C 144/88)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.


title: Case C-230/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — WIND Telecomunicazioni SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — WIND Telecomunicazioni SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others
   (Case C-230/12)
   2012/C 217/19
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: WIND Telecomunicazioni SpA

      Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others

      Question referred

   Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20/EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included.

      (1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive); OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.


title: Case C-111/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon — Greece) — OL v PQ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — International child abduction — Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 11 — Application for return — Concept of ‘habitual residence’ of an infant — Child born, as agreed by her parents, in a Member State other than that where they were habitually resident — Child continuing to reside for the first months of her life in the Member State of her birth — Mother’s decision not to return to the Member State where the couple had been habitually resident)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon — Greece) — OL v PQ
   (Case C-111/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility - International child abduction - Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 11 - Application for return - Concept of ‘habitual residence’ of an infant - Child born, as agreed by her parents, in a Member State other than that where they were habitually resident - Child continuing to reside for the first months of her life in the Member State of her birth - Mother’s decision not to return to the Member State where the couple had been habitually resident))
   (2017/C 249/16)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: OL

      Defendant: PQ

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation, such as that in the main proceedings, where a child has been born and has lived continuously with her mother for several months, in accordance with the joint wishes of her parents, in a Member State other than that where those parents were habitually resident before her birth, the initial intention of the parents with respect to the return of the mother, together with the child, to the latter Member State cannot allow the conclusion that that child was ‘habitually resident’ there, within the meaning of that regulation.
   Consequently, in such a situation, the refusal of the mother to return to the latter Member State together with the child cannot be considered to be a ‘wrongful removal or retention’ of the child, within the meaning of Article 11(1).

      (1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 10 May 1995 in Case C-422/92: Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Transposition of the Directives on waste, toxic and dangerous waste and the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste)

text:
24 . 6 . 95              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 159/3
      the laws of the Member States concerning                              Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
      telecommunications terminal equipment, including the                  under Directives 75/442/EEC and 78/319/EEC;
      mutual recognition of their conformity, the Kingdom of
      Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under               2 , for the rest, dismisses the application;
      Article 1 89 of the EC Treaty and Article 1 7 of Directive
      9 1 /263 /EEC;
                                                                       3 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.
2 , orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                       (M   OJ No  C 35 , 9 . 2 . 1993 .
                                                                       (2)  OJ No  L 194 , 25 . 7 . 1975 , p . 39 .
( ! ) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .                                    (3 ) OJ No  L 84, 31 . 3 . 1978 , p . 43 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 128 , 23 . 5 . 1991 , p . 1 .                            (4)  OJ No  L 326, 13 . 12 . 1984 , p . 31
                                                                       (5)  OJ No  L 181 , 4 . 7 . 1986 , p . 13 .
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 10 May 1995                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-422/92 : Commission of the European                                                     of 10 May 1995
       Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (*)                  in Case C-384/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                 the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven ): Alpine
 Transposition of the Directives on waste, toxic and                           Investments BV v. Minister van Financiën (M
dangerous waste and the transfrontier shipment of                      (Freedom to provide services — Article 59 of the EEC
                          hazardous waste)                             Treaty — Prohibition of cold calling by telephone for
                            ( 95/C 159/05 )                                                       financial services)
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/06 )
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-422/92 : Commission of the European
Communities (Agents : Rolf Wàgenbaur, assisted by                      In Case C-384/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Alexander Bohlke, of the Brussels Bar ) v. Federal Republic
                                                                       of the EEC Treaty from the College van Beroep voor het
of Germany (Agents : Ernst Roder and Ludger-Anselm
                                                                       Bedrijfsleven ( Administrative Court for Trade and Industry)
Versteyl, Rechtsanwalt, Burgwedel ) — application for a
                                                                       for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
declaration that, by failing to bring into force all the
                                                                       that court between Alpine Investments BV and Minister van
measures needed to transpose Council Directive
                                                                       Financiën — on the interpretation of Article 59 of the EEC
75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste ( 2), Council Directive
                                                                       Treaty — the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
78/319/EEC of 20 March 1978 on toxic and dangerous
waste ( 3 ), Council Directive 84/63 1 /EEC of 6 December              President, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn and C.
                                                                       Gulmann, Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C.
1984 on the supervision and control within the European
                                                                       Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward
Community of the transfrontier shipment of hazardous
waste ( 4 ) and Council Directive 86/279/EEC of 12 June                ( Rapporteur ) and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
                                                                       Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
1986 amending Directive 84/631/EEC ( 5 ), the Federal
Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations               Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 May 1995 , the operative
                                                                       part of which is as follows :
under the EEC Treaty — the Court, composed of G. C.
Rodriguez Iglesias , President, F. A. Schockweiler and C.
Gulmann ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C.               1 . On a proper construction, Article 59 of the EEC Treaty
Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward , J. -P.                 covers services which the provider offers by telephone to
Puissochet ( Rapporteur ) and G. Hirsch, Judges ; F. G.                     potential recipients established in other Member States
Jacobs , Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                             and provides without moving from the Member State in
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                     which he is established.
judgment on 10 May 1995 , in which it:
                                                                       2 . Rules of a Member State which prohibit providers of
1 , declares that, by excluding certain categories of                       services established in its territory from making
      recyclable waste from the scope of its legislation on the             unsolicited telephone calls to potential clients
      disposal of waste and by failing to draw up, keep up to               established in other Member States in order to offer their
      date, publish or notify to the Commission within the                  services constitute a restriction on freedom to provide
      prescribed period the plans for the disposal of toxic and             services within the meaning of Article 59 of the
      dangerous waste for certain regions, the Federal                      Treaty.


title: Case T-162/12: Order of the General Court of 18 November 2013 — Trabelsi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Extension of asset-freezing — Annulment of initial asset-freezing measures — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/16

         Order of the General Court of 18 November 2013 — Trabelsi v Council
   (Case T-162/12) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Extension of asset-freezing - Annulment of initial asset-freezing measures - No need to adjudicate)
   2014/C 15/22
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mohamed Trabelsi (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Tekari, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2012/50/CFSP of 27 January 2012 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2012 L 27, p. 11), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The Council of the European Union is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 12 August 1996 in the case of Lopex Export GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Case C-315/96)

text:
9. 11 . 96            I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 336/21
2 . Having regard to the answer to the first question, do the         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
     said provisions apply to operations of the kind at issue in      Hamburg by order of that court of 12 August 1996
     the present case, where the owners of a hotel in the south       in the case of Lopex Export GmbH v. Hauptzollamt
     of England, as part of their business as hoteliers, offers                                Hamburg-Jonas
     to customers at a single inclusive charge a week's stay at                               ( Case C-3 15/96 )
     the hotel , transport by coach between the hotel and
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/41 )
     points in the north of England, and a local sight-seeing
     trip by coach during their stay at the hotel ( the transport
     elements being bought in by the owners of the hotel from         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     a coach hire company )?                                          European Communities by an order of the Joint Senate of
                                                                      the Finanzgericht Hamburg ( Hamburg Finance Court) for
                                                                      the     Lander of Hamburg, Niedersachsen and
(>) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                              Schleswig-Holstein, Fourth Senate, of 12 August 1996 ,
                                                                      which was received at the Court Registry on 26 September
                                                                       1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Lopex Export
                                                                      GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the following
                                                                      questions :
                                                                      1 . Is the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 13 of
                                                                          Regulation ( EEC ) No 171 5/90 ( 1 ) in so far as it
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                         prescribes that binding tariff information ceases to be
Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli, by                   valid immediately as a result of the adoption of a
order of that court of 9 September 1996 in the case of                    regulation amending the customs nomenclature, with
Daniele Annibaldi against 1 . Municipality of Guidonia and                no transitional period, compatible with Community law
             2 . the President of the Lazio Region                        from the points of view of protection of legitimate
                                                                          expectations and legal certainty ?
                         ( Case C-309/96 )
                           ( 96/C 336/40 )                            2 . If not, what are the consequences in particular in a case
                                                                          where binding tariff information, differing from the
                                                                          amended nomenclature, has been issued and/or there is
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    an export licence with an advance fixing certificate
European Communities by order of the Pretura                              which is still valid for a further six months ?
Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome
District Magistrates ' Court, Tivoli Division ), of 9 September           Is a decision on the limited continuing validity of
1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on                        binding tariff information to be measured against the
23 September 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of               general conditions which have been developed on
Daniele Annibaldi against 1 . Municipality of Guidonia and                protection of legitimate expectations, and in particular
2 . the President of the Lazio Region on the following                    does it presuppose an expectation of the exporter to that
questions:                                                                effect which deserves protection as against the
                                                                          Community interest ? Does that also apply with respect
1 . Is a national law which requires undertakings                         to the third indent of Article 14 ( 4 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
     incorporated within a nature and archaeological park to              No 1715/90, under which the advance fixing certificate
     refrain from any activity whatsoever in the area                     must have been 'issued on the basis of the said binding
     concerned     —     which    amounts   to   a    substantial         tariff information '
     expropriation of the undertakings incorporated within
     the park itself without any provision being made for             (M OJ No L 160 , 26 . 6 . 1990, p . 1 .
     payment of compensation to the individuals whose
     property is expropriated — in breach of the
     fundamental right to property, to carry on business and
     to equal treatment by the national authorities ?
2 . Irrespective of the answer which the Court of Justice
     may consider appropriate in response to the first                Action brought on 26 September 1996 by the Commis
     question, are the measures provided for by Article 7 of          sion of the European Communities against the Italian
     the regional law in question ( equivalent, for the                                             Republic
     purposes of proceedings under Community law, to any                                     ( Case C-3 16/96 )
     other national legislation ) in breach of the principle of                                 ( 96/C 336/42 )
     equal treatment and the related prohibition of
     discrimination laid down in the second subparagraph of
     Article 40 ( 3 ) of the Treaty of Rome ?                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                      An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on


title: Case C-606/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Sundsvall (Sweden) lodged on 25 November 2013 — OKG AB v Skatteverket

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Sundsvall (Sweden) lodged on 25 November 2013 — OKG AB v Skatteverket
   (Case C-606/13)
   2014/C 39/14
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Kammarrätten i Sundsvall

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: OKG AB

      Defendant: Skatteverket

      Questions referred

               1.

               Article 4(2) of the Energy Taxation Directive (1) states that ‘level of taxation’ is the total charge levied in respect of all indirect taxes (except VAT) calculated directly or indirectly on the quantity of electricity at the time of release for consumption. Under Article 21(5) of that directive, electricity is to be subject to taxation and the tax liability is to become applicable at the time of supply by the distributor or redistributor. Do these articles preclude a tax levied on the thermal power of nuclear reactors?

               2.

               Does a tax on thermal power constitute an excise duty which is levied directly or indirectly on the consumption of such goods (excise goods) as are referred to in Article 1(1) of the Excise Duty Directive? (2)

      (1)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).

      (2)  Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12).


title: Case T-454/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 October 2007 — Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe and Philagro France v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance procymidone — Directive 91/414/EEC — Action for annulment — Action for failure to act — No need to adjudicate — Action for damages — Inadmissibility — Action manifestly unfounded)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/40

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 October 2007 — Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe and Philagro France v Commission
   (Case T-454/05) (1)

   (Plant protection products - Active substance procymidone - Directive 91/414/EEC - Action for annulment - Action for failure to act - No need to adjudicate - Action for damages - Inadmissibility - Action manifestly unfounded)
   (2007/C 315/75)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe SAS (Lyon, France) and Philagro France SAS (Lyon) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, Lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty, agent)
   Re:
   Application for, first and primarily, annulment of the decision of the Commission allegedly contained in the letter of 20 October 2005 concerning authorisation to place the active substance procymidone on the market pursuant to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230 p. 1); second, as an alternative to the claim for annulment, for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt the measures requested by Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe SAS and its affiliates in a letter of 5 September 2005; and, third, for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the Commission's adoption of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of 20 October 2005 and, in the alternative, as a result of the Commission's failure to adopt the measures requested in the letter of 5 September 2005.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the actions for annulment and failure to act.

               2.

               The action for damages is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it seeks compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe SAS and Philagro France SAS as a result of the adoption by the Commission of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of 20 October 2005.

               3.

               The action for damages is dismissed as manifestly without foundation in law in so far as it seeks compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe and Philagro France as a result of the failure by the Commission to adopt the measures requested by Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe and its affiliates in the letter of 5 September 2005.

               4.

               Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe and Philagro France are to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court (Full Court) of 30 March 2004 inCase C-167/02 P: WilliRothley and Others v EuropeanParliament (‘Appeal— Measure of the Parliament concerning the terms and conditions for internalinvestigations in relation to the prevention of fraud — Action for annulment— Admissibility — Independence and immunity of Members of the Parliament —Confidentiality connected with the work of Parliamentary committees of inquiry— European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Investigative powers’)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Full Court)
   of 30 March 2004
   in Case C-167/02 P: Willi Rothley and Others v European Parliament
       (1)

   (‘Appeal - Measure of the Parliament concerning the terms and conditions for internal investigations in relation to the prevention of fraud - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Independence and immunity of Members of the Parliament - Confidentiality connected with the work of Parliamentary committees of inquiry - European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) - Investigative powers’)
   (2004/C 106/16)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-167/02 P: appeal by Willi Rothley, residing in Rockenhausen (Germany), Marco Pannella, residing in Rome (Italy), Marco Cappato, residing in Milan (Italy), Gianfranco Dell'Alba, residing in Rome, Benedetto Della Vedova, residing in Milan, Olivier Dupuis, residing in Rome, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, residing in Düsseldorf (Germany), Johannes Voggenhuber, residing in Vienna (Austria), Christian von Boetticher, residing in Pinneberg (Germany), Emma Bonino, residing in Rome, Elmar Brok, residing in Bielefeld (Germany), Renato Brunetta, residing in Rome, Udo Bullmann, residing in Gießen (Germany), Michl Ebner, residing in Bolzano (Italy), Raina A. Mercedes Echerer, residing in Vienna, Markus Ferber, residing in Bobingen (Germany), Francesco Fiori, residing in Voghera (Italy), Evelyne Gebhardt, residing in Mulfingen (Germany), Norbert Glante, residing in Werder/Havel (Germany), Alfred Gomolka, residing in Greifswald (Germany), Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, residing in Spenge (Germany), Lissy Gröner, residing in Neustadt (Germany), Ruth Hieronymi, residing in Bonn (Germany), Magdalene Hoff, residing in Hagen (Germany), Georg Jarzembowski, residing in Hamburg (Germany), Karin Jöns, residing in Bremen (Germany), Karin Junker, residing in Düsseldorf, Othmar Karas, residing in Vienna, Margot Keßler, residing in Kehmstedt (Germany), Heinz Kindermann, residing in Strasburg (Germany), Karsten Knolle, residing in Quedlinburg (Germany), Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, residing in Weimar (Germany), Christoph Konrad, residing in Bochum (Germany), Constanze Krehl, residing in Leipzig (Germany), Wilfried Kuckelkorn, residing in Bergheim (Germany), Helmut Kuhne, residing in Soest (Germany), Bernd Lange, residing in Hanover (Germany), Kurt Lechner, residing in Kaiserslautern (Germany), Jo Leinen, residing in Saarbrucken (Germany), Rolf Linkohr, residing in Stuttgart (Germany), Giorgio Lisi, residing in Rimini (Italy), Erika Mann, residing in Bad Gandersheim (Germany), Thomas Mann, residing in Schwalbach/Taunus (Germany), Mario Mauro, residing in Milan, Hans-Peter Mayer, residing in Vechta (Germany), Winfried Menrad, residing in Schwäbisch Hall (Germany), Peter-Michael Mombaur, residing in Düsseldorf, Rosemarie Müller, residing in Nieder-Olm (Germany), Hartmut Nassauer, residing in Wolfhagen (Germany), Giuseppe Nistico, residing in Rome, Willi Piecyk, residing in Reinfeld (Germany), Hubert Pirker, residing in Klagenfurt (Austria), Christa Randzio-Plath, residing in Hamburg, Bernhard Rapkay, residing in Dortmund (Germany), Mechtild Rothe, residing in Bad Lippspringe (Germany), Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, residing in Berlin (Germany), Paul Rübig, residing in Wels (Austria), Umberto Scapagnini, residing in Catane (Italy), Jannis Sakellariou, residing in Munich (Germany), Horst Schnellhardt, residing in Langenstein (Germany), Jürgen Schröder, residing in Dresden (Germany), Martin Schulz, residing in Würselen (Germany), Renate Sommer, residing in Herne (Germany), Ulrich Stockmann, residing in Bad Kösen (Germany), Maurizio Turco, residing in Pulsano (Italy), Guido Viceconte, residing in Bari (Italy), Ralf Walter, residing in Cochem (Germany), Brigitte Wenzel-Perillo, residing in Leipzig, Rainer Wieland, residing in Stuttgart, Stefano Zappala, residing in Latina (Italy), and Jürgen Zimmerling, residing in Essen (Germany), represented by: H.-J. Rabe, Rechtsanwalt, against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 26 February 2002 in Case T-17/00 Rothley and Others v Parliament [2002] ECR II-579, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being: European Parliament, represented by J. Schoo and H. Krück, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, defendant at first instance, Kingdom of the Netherlands, (Agent: H.G. Sevenster), French Republic, Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Bauer and I. Díez Parra) and Commission of the European Communities (Agents: H.-P. Hartvig and U. Wölker) with an address for service in Luxembourg, interveners at first instance, the Court (Full Court), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges, Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs, Registrar: M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on 30 March 2004 in which it:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders the appellants to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament;

               3)

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.


title: Case T-569/15: Order of the General Court of 14 March 2016 — Fondazione Casamica v Commission and EASME

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/54

         Order of the General Court of 14 March 2016 — Fondazione Casamica v Commission and EASME
   (Case T-569/15) (1)

   (2016/C 156/75)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


title: Order of the Court of 21 June 2000 in Case C-514/99: French Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Application for annulment — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
21.10.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 302/13
Court) Münster, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the                     of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx, assisted by F.P. Louis and
proceedings pending before that court between Viktor Movrin                  A. Vallery) — application for a declaration that, by communi-
and Landesversicherungsanstalt Westfalen (Regional Insurance                 cating to the Commission a programme for the implemen-
Office, Westphalia) on the interpretation of the EC Treaty and               tation of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on                    concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135,
the application of social security schemes to employed persons,              p. 40) which does not comply with the directive as regards the
to self-employed persons and to members of their families                    Brussels-Capital Region, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
moving within the Community, as amended and updated by                       fulfil its obligations under that directive and, in particular,
Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ                     Article 17 thereof — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
1997 L 28, p. 1) the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                     of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber,
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), President of the                      R. Schintgen, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and F. Macken (Rap-
Chamber, R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and                      porteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; D. Louterman-
V. Skouris, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von                    Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a                   judgment on 6 July 2000, in which it:
judgment on 6 July 2000, in which it held that:
                                                                             1.    Declares that, by communicating to the Commission a pro-
On a proper construction of Article 1(t) and Article 10(1) of Council              gramme for the implementation of Council Directive
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application                     91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water
of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                   treatment which does not comply with that directive as regards
persons and to members of their families moving within the                         the Brussels-Capital Region, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC)                       to fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of that directive;
No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, a sickness insurance contribution
subsidy provided for in the legislation of a Member State, such as the       2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
subsidy at issue in the main proceedings, constitutes an old-age cash
benefit for the purposes of those provisions. The recipient of an old-
age pension payable under that legislation may claim such a subsidy          (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
even if he is resident in another Member State where he is compulsorily
affiliated to the sickness insurance scheme.
(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 21 June 2000
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    in Case C-514/99: French Republic v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Application for annulment — Manifest inadmissibility)
                              of 6 July 2000
                                                                                (2000/C 302/24)
in Case C-236/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                    ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                 to transpose Directive 91/271/EEC)
                                                                             (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                             (2000/C 302/23)
                                                                             In Case C-514/99: French Republic (Agents: R. Abraham,
                       (Language of the case: French)                        K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Loosli-Surrans) v Commission of
                                                                             the European Communities (Agents: D. Booß and G. Berscheid)
                                                                             — application for annulment of the Commission’s decision
                                                                             refusing to modify or revoke its Decision 1999/514/EC of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       23 July 1999 setting the date on which dispatch from the
                      in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             United Kingdom of bovine products under the date-based
                                                                             export scheme may commence by virtue of Article 6(5) of
In Case C-236/99: Commission of the European Communities                     Council Decision 98/256/EC (OJ 1999 L 195, p. 42) — the
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and O. Couvert-Castéra) v Kingdom                 Court, composed of. G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
 ---pagebreak--- C 302/14                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.10.2000
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón (Rappor-               Action brought on 27 December 1999 by Portuguese
teur) and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers, and                       Republic against Commission of the European Communi-
P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet,                                              ties
G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris
and F. Macken, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,                                       (Case C-509/99)
Registrar, has made an order on 21 June 2000, the operative
part of which is as follows:                                                                        (2000/C 302/26)
1.    The action is dismissed.                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
2.    The French Republic is to pay the costs.                            Communities on 27 December 1999 by the Portuguese Repub-
                                                                          lic, represented by Luı́s Fernandes, Director of the Legal
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.                                                  Services of the Directorate General for Community Affairs at
                                                                          the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Maria Luı́sa Duarte,
                                                                          Professor at the Law Faculty of the University of Lisbon, acting
                                                                          as Agents, and by Miguel Galvão Teles and Mário Marques
                                                                          Mendes, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at the Portuguese Embassy, 24 Rue Guillaume
                                                                          Schneider.
Action brought on 13 October 1999 by Portuguese                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Republic against Commission of the European Communi-
                                ties                                      1.    find the present application admissible and
                          (Case C-391/99)                                       (a)   declare non-existent Commission Decision of
                                                                                20 October 1999 (C (1999) 3370 final) relating to
                          (2000/C 302/25)                                             a procedure pursuant to Article 21 of Council
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (1) of 21 December
                                                                                1989 on the control of concentrations between
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                             undertakings (Case IV/M 1616 — A. Champali-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                          maud/BSCH)
Communities on 13 October 1999 by the Portuguese Repu-
blic, represented by Luı́s Fernandes, Director of the Legal                     (b) in the alternative, declare the abovementioned
Services of the Directorate General for Community Affairs at                          Decision void.
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Maria Luı́sa Duarte,
Professor at the Law Faculty of the University of Lisbon, acting          2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Portuguese Embassy, 24 Rue Guillaume Schneider.                           By Order of 14 September 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                          of the European Communities ordered the removal of the case from
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               the Register of the Court.
1.    find the present application admissible and                         (1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1.
      (a)   declare non-existent Commission Decision of
            20 July 1999 (C (1999) 2406 final) relating to
            a procedure pursuant to Article 21 of Council
            Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (1) of 21 December
            1989 on the control of concentrations between
            undertakings (Proc. IV/M 1616 — A. Champali-                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
            maud/BSCH)                                                    tungsgericht by order of 27 April 2000 in the case of
                                                                          Stratmann GmbH & Co. KG v Landrätin of Wesel Local
      (b) in the alternative, declare the abovementioned                                               Authority
            Decision void.
                                                                                (Case C-284/00)
2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2000/C 302/27)
By Order of 13 September 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal of the case from          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the Register of the Court.                                                European Communities by order of 27 April 2000 by the
                                                                          Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court),
(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1.                                                  which was received at the Court Registry on 19 July 2000, for
                                                                          a preliminary ruling in the case of Stratmann GmbH & Co. KG
                                                                          v Landrätin (Administrative Head) of Wesel Local Authority
                                                                          on the following question:


title: Case C-149/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of 23 March 1999 in the case of Johannes Blachnitzky v Landes- Grundverkehrskommission beim Amt der Tiroler Landesregierung

text:
C 188/20               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         3.7.1999
     effected after the entry into force of the guidelines for         3) In the absence of appropriate technical and/or scientific
     the application of flat-rate adjustments fixed by the                  justification for the limitation, the limitation of the area
     Commission. In any event, in its final report the concili-             for which aid was payable under the Scheme must be
     ation body itself expressed the view that the Commission               considered as arbitrary. Accordingly, to the extent that it
     had not given sufficient reasons for applying the 25% rate.            limits aid payable under the Scheme to 100 ha, the
                                                                            contested decision is inadequately reasoned, arbitrary and
                                                                            thereby contrary to Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
(1) OJ No L 61 of 10.3.1999, p. 37.
                                                                       4) The contested decision is a legislative act which retro-
                                                                            actively imposes a limitation of 100 ha under the Scheme
                                                                            contrary to the fundamental principles of legal certainty
                                                                            and legitimate expectations. Accordingly, to the extent that
                                                                            it limits the aid payable under the Scheme to 100 ha, the
                                                                            contested decision is void.
Action brought on 22 April 1999 by the United Kingdom
  against the Commission of the European Communities                   (1) of 28 April 1989, laying down detailed rules concerning the aid
                                                                           for fibre flax and hemp, OJ L 121,29.04.89, p. 4.
                                                                       (2) of the Council of 29 June 1970 on the common organisation of
                         (Case C-148/99)                                   the market in flax and hemp, OJ English Special Edition 1970(II),
                                                                           p. 411.
                         (1999/C 188/44)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 22 April 1999 by the United Kingdom,
represented by Mr John E. Collins, Assistant Treasury Solicitor,
acting as agent, assisted by Mr Alastair Sutton, Barrister of the
Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14, boulevard Roosevelt.            Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
                                                                       gerichtshof by order of that court of 23 March 1999 in
                                                                       the case of Johannes Blachnitzky v Landes- Grundver-
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                            kehrskommission beim Amt der Tiroler Landesregierung
— annul those parts of the contested decision which disallow
     the sum of £869,283.00 from the monies allocated to the                                     (Case C-149/99)
     United Kingdom under the scheme set out in Commission
     Regulation 1164/89/EEC (1);
                                                                                (1999/C 188/45)
— order the Commission to pay the United Kingdom’s costs.
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Verwaltungsgericht-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        shof (Administrative Court), Austria, of 23 March 1999, which
                                                                       was received at the Court Registry on 22 April 1999, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of Johannes Blachnitzky v
                                                                       Landes-Grundverkehrskommission beim Amt der Tiroler Lan-
1) Regulation 1164/89/EEC contains no provision limiting
                                                                       desregierung on the following questions:
     Member States’ discretion in deciding on the relevant
     parameters for reviewing the varieties they decide to
     introduce under the Regulation. There is nothing in the           1. Is Article 1(1) of Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June
     Regulation which imposes a limit of 100 ha (nor even any               1990 on the right of residence (1) in conjunction with
     mention of acreage limitations). The contested decision is             Articles 2(3) and 3 of that directive and possibly in
     based on a misinterpretation of the Regulation and is                  conjunction with Article 6 of the EC Treaty to be
     therefore illegal to the extent that it imposes a limit of             interpreted as meaning that a directly effective right of
     100 ha on the aid payable under the Scheme.                            nationals of another Member State of the European Union
                                                                            to acquire land as a principal residence is in principle to be
2) In taking the contested decision, the Commission in effect               derived therefrom?
     introduced a legislative measure having the effect of
     limiting the scope of Regulation 1164/89/EEC. It did so in        2. Does the acquisition of land by a national of another
     the guise of an administrative decision. It failed to follow           Member State of the European Union in a Member State
     the procedures under Article 12 of Regu-                               for which he possesses a corresponding residence permit
     lation 1308/70/EEC (2). Accordingly, to the extent that it             for nationals of an EU Member State and where he has
     limits the aid payable under the Scheme to 100 ha, the                 his principal residence come under the provisions of
     contested decision is void for manifest lack of competence             Article 73b(l) of the EC Treaty on free movement of capital
     and/or infringement of an essential procedural require-                or those of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988
     ment, in particular of the procedures provided for in                  for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (2) (the
     Article 12 of Regulation 1308/70/EEC.                                  capital transfer directive)?
 ---pagebreak--- 3.7.1999                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 188/21
3. If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, is the free              Action brought on 23 April 1999 by the Commission of
     movement of capital under Article 73b(l) of the EC Treaty                     the European Communities against Ireland
     ancillary to the other freedoms under the EC Treaty (e.g.
     freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services),
     so that the acquisition of land in a State of which an EU                                      (Case C-151/99)
     citizen is not a national which cannot be based on other
     freedoms under the EC Treaty also cannot be carried out                                        (1999/C 188/47)
     in reliance on the free movement of capital?
                                                                          An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
(1) OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26.                                                 Justice of the European Communities on 23 April 1999 by the
(2) OJ 1988 L 178, p. 5.                                                  Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                          Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an address
                                                                          for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                          Cruz, member of the legal Service of the Commission, Centre
                                                                          Wagner, Kirchberg.
                                                                          The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          1) declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations or
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt,                     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
by order of that court of 26 March 1999, in the case of                       Council Directive 95/18/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning
the State against Stockholm Aktiebolag and Stockholm                          the licensing of railway undertakings (1), or by failing to
                     Lindöpark against the State                              adopt the measures necessary to comply with it, Ireland
                                                                              has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
                           (Case C-150/99)
                                                                          2) order Ireland to pay the costs.
                           (1999/C 188/46)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities, by order of the Svea Hovrätt of
23 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of the                Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall be
State against Stockholm Aktiebolag and Stockholm Lindöpark                binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
against the State on the following questions:                             State, carries by implication an obligation on the Member
                                                                          States to observe the period for compliance laid down in the
1. Do Articles 13A(l)(m) and 13B(b) (1) of the Sixth VAT                  directive. That period expired on 27 June 1997 without Ireland
     Directive preclude national provisions providing for a               having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the
     general exemption from VAT for the supply of sports                  directive referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
     facilities, as laid down in the second paragraph of Article 2
     of Chapter 3 of the Mervärdesskattelagen (1994:200), in
     the version in force before 1 January 1997?                          (1) OJ L 143, 27.06.95, p. 70.
2. Does Article 13, in combination with Articles 2, 6 and 17
     of the Sixth VAT Directive, confer on individuals rights on
     which they can rely as against Member States before a
     national court?
3. In the event that the first two questions are answered in
     the affirmative:
                                                                          Action brought on 23 April 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities against Ireland
     Does the implementation and application of the exemption
     provided for in the second paragraph of Article 2 of
     Chapter 3 of the Mervärdesskattelagen (1994:200) entail                                        (Case C-152/99)
     such a serious (clear) infringement of Community law that
     it can render a Member State liable in damages?
                                                                                (1999/C 188/48)
(1) Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the            An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
    harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to            Justice of the European Communities on 23 April 1999 by the
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform            Commission of the European Communities, represented by
    basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
                                                                          Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an address
                                                                          for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                          Cruz, member of the legal Service of the Commission, Centre
                                                                          Wagner, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-320/04: Action brought on 30 July 2004 by Triantafyllia Dionyssopoulou against the Council of the European Union

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/30

         Action brought on 30 July 2004 by Triantafyllia Dionyssopoulou against the Council of the European Union
   (Case T-320/04)
   (2004/C 273/60)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 July 2004 by Triantafyllia Dionyssopoulou, residing at Norwich, Norfolk (United Kingdom), represented by Claude Quackels, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               annul the decision notified on 12 December 2003 which used the correction coefficient for Greece for the computation of the pension;

               —

               award the applicant as from 1 November 2003 the correction coefficient for the United Kingdom in respect of her pension;

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant by way of compensation for material and non-material damage a sum fixed ex æquo and de bono at EUR 20 000 in respect of loss estimated, without prejudice to any increase during the proceedings, at EUR 50 000;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant in this case, a former Community official in receipt of invalidity pension, challenges the administrative authority's decision to apply to that pension the correction coefficient for Greece rather than that applicable to the United Kingdom.
   On this point she states that because of her taking up residence in the latter Member State, she is entitled to the application of that coefficient and that the refusal at issue in this dispute is unlawful, in so far as it fails to have regard to the principles of equal treatment, of the protection of legitimate expectations and of proper administration.
   Furthermore, she alleges that the contested decision is based on a manifest error of assessment.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 14 July 1998 in Case C-341/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Avezzano (Italy)): Gianni Bettati v. Safety Hi-Tech Srl (Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 - Measures to protect the ozone layer - Restrictions on the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons and halons - Validity)

text:
26.9.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 299/3
     by citizens of the European Union residing in a                 2. consideration of the questions submitted has not
     Member State of which they are not nationals, the                    disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the
     Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations              validity of Regulation (EC) No 3093/94.
     under the first paragraph of Article 14 of that
     Directive;
                                                                     (1) OJ C 268, 14.10.1995.
                                                                     (2) OJ L 333, 22.12.1994, p. 1.
2. orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
(2) OJ L 368, 31.12.1994. p. 38.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 14 July 1998
                                                                     in Case C-341/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Pretura Circondariale di Avezzano (Italy)): Gianni
                                                                                Bettati v. Safety Hi-Tech Srl (1)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 14 July 1998                               (Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 Ð Measures to protect the
                                                                                ozone layer Ð Restrictions on the use of
in Case C-284/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  hydrochlorofluorocarbons and halons Ð Validity)
the Giudice di Pace di Genova (Italy)): Safety Hi-Tech Srl
                       v. S. & T. Srl (1)                                                     (98/C 299/04)
(Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 Ð Measures to protect the
           ozone layer Ð Restrictions on the use of
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
      hydrochlorofluorocarbons and halons Ð Validity)
                         (98/C 299/03)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                (Language of the case: Italian)                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-341/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di
          published in the European Court Reports)                   Avezzano (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                     proceedings pending before that court betrween Gianni
                                                                     Bettati and Safety Hi-Tech Srl Ð on the validity of
                                                                     Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 of
In Case C-284/95: reference to the Court under Article 177           15 December 1994 on substances that deplete the ozone
of the EC Treaty from the Giudice di Pace di Genova                  layer (2) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending          Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm and M.
before that court between Safety Hi-Tech Srl and S. & T.             Wathelet, Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C.
Srl Ð on the interpretation and validity of Council                  Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, D. A. O. Edward,
Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 of 15 December 1994 on                    P. Jann, L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou (Rapporteur),
substances that deplete the ozone layer (2) Ð the Court,             Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.                 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Presidents of                 14 July 1998 in which it ruled:
Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
P. J. G. Kapteyn, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, L. Sevón and
K. M. Ioannou (Rapporteur), Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate
General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the                consideration of the question submitted has not disclosed
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 July 1998 in which             any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of
it ruled:                                                            Council Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 of 15 December
                                                                     1994 on substances that deplete the ozone layer.
1. Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 of                (1) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995.
     15 December 1994 on substances that deplete the                 (2) OJ L 333, 22.12.1994, p. 1.
     ozone layer must be interpreted as prohibiting entirely
     the use and, consequently, the marketing of
     hydrochlorofluorocarbons for firefighting;


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2003 in Case T-63/02: Maria Concetta Cerafogli and Paolo Poloni v European Central Bank (Officials — European Central Bank staff — Pay — Method of calculating the annual pay adjustment — Consultation of staff committee — Articles 13, 45 and 46 of the Conditions of Employment)

text:
24.1.2004               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 21/31
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 5 November 2003
                      of 27 November 2003
                                                                            in Case T-240/01: Jean-Louis Cougnon v Court of Justice
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
in Case T-190/00: Regione Siciliana v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                 (Officials — Appointments procedure — Grade A 2 post —
                                                                                Candidature rejected)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/65)
(State aid — Operating loans — Admissibility — Time-
limit — Confirmatory act — Action for annulment —                                              (Language of the case: French)
Existing aid or new aid — Principle of tempus regit actum
  — Export aid — Operating aid — Reasonable time-limit)
                                                                            In Case T-240/01: Jean-Louis Cougnon, an official of the
                                                                            European Parliament, residing in Capellen (Luxembourg),
                          (2004/C 21/64)                                    represented by J. Choucroun, lawyer, with an address for
                                                                            service in Luxembourg, against the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities (Agent: M. Schauss) — application
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                         for the annulment of a decision rejecting the applicant’s
                                                                            candidature for the post of Director of Personnel and Finances
                                                                            at the Court of Justice and appointing another candidate —
                                                                            the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed
                                                                            of V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges;
                                                                            D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judg-
In Case T-190/00: Regione Siciliana, represented by F. Quadri,              ment on 5 November 2003, in which it:
avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities                       1.    Dismisses the application.
(Agents: V. Di Bucci and D. Triantafyllou) application for
annulment of Commission Decision 2000/319/EC of                             2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
22 December 1999 on the State aid scheme implemented by
Italy for the production, processing and marketing of the
                                                                            (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001
products listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty (Sicilian Regional
Law No 68, of 27 September 1995) (OJ 2000 L 110, p. 17),
in so far as it states that the State aid granted under Article 6
of Sicilian Regional Law No 68 of 27 September 1995 to
agriculture and fisheries enterprises is incompatible with the
common market and requires Italy to withdraw that aid — the
Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition),                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh,
J. D. Cooke, A. W. H. Meij and H. Legal, Judges; J. Palacio                                      of 20 November 2003
González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave the
following judgment on 27 November 2003:                                     in Case T-63/02: Maria Concetta Cerafogli and Paolo
                                                                                Poloni v European Central Bank (1)
1.    The application is dismissed;                                         (Officials — European Central Bank staff — Pay — Method
                                                                            of calculating the annual pay adjustment — Consultation of
                                                                            staff committee — Articles 13, 45 and 46 of the Conditions
2.    The applicant is ordered to pay its own costs and those incurred                                of Employment)
      by the Commission.
                                                                                (2004/C 21/66)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
                                                                            In Case T-63/02: Maria Concetta Cerafogli and Paolo Poloni,
                                                                            officials of the European Central Bank, residing in Frankfurt-
 ---pagebreak--- C 21/32                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            24.1.2004
on-Main (Germany), represented by T. Raab-Rhein, C. Roth                  Mollerussa (Spain): Action brought against the decision of the
and B. Karthaus, lawyers, with an address for service in                  Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
Luxembourg, against European Central Bank (Agents: V. Sain-               the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of
tot, T. Gilliams and B. Wägenbaur), application for, first,               16 January 2002 (Case R 40/2000-3) concerning the oppo-
annulment of the pay slips sent on 13 July 2001 to the                    sition filed by the owner of the national trade mark EL
applicants, staff of the European Central Bank (ECB), for the             CASTILLO, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
month of July 2001, insofar as they are based on an increase              composed of: N. J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and
in basic pay of 2.2 % and, secondly, orders that the ECB send             A. W. H. Meij, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, has given a
the applicants pay slips for the month of July 2001 based on              judgment on 4 November 2003, in which it:
an increase in basic pay of at least 2.7 %, or, in the alternative,
on an increase corresponding to that upheld in the Court’s
                                                                          1.    Dismisses the application;
judgment in this case, and pay them the difference between
those amounts, the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and N. J. Forwood,             2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 20 November 2003, the operative part
                                                                          (1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
of which is as follows:
1.    The pay slips sent on 13 July 2001 to the applicants, staff of
      the European Central Bank (ECB), for the month of July 2001
      are annulled in so far as the ECB failed to consult the staff
      committee in adopting the salaries adjustment for the year
      2001;
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    The remainder of the action is dismissed;
                                                                                of 5 November 2003
3.    The European Central Bank shall pay the costs.
                                                                          in Case T-98/02, Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi v Com-
(1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.                                                           mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Officials — Staff report — Performance of staff representa-
                                                                            tive’s and trade union activities — Action for annulment)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/68)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                      of 4 November 2003
in Case T-85/02: Pedro Díaz, SA v Office for Harmonis-
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                    In Case T-98/02, Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi, an official of
                            (OHIM) (1)                                    the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                          Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by G. Bouneou and
(Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Appli-                     F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
cation for Community word mark CASTILLO — Earlier                         against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
national figurative mark EL CASTILLO — Likelihood of                      D. Martin and C. Berardis-Kayser), application for annulment
 confusion — Similar marks already on the relevant market)                of the decision to adopt the applicant’s final staff report for
                                                                          the period from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997, the Court of First
                                                                          Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President,
                          (2004/C 21/67)                                  P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator,
                                                                          for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 November 2003,
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                         the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                          1.    The decision to adopt the applicant’s final staff report for the
In Case T-85/02, Pedro Díaz, SA, established in Cartagena                       period from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997 is annulled.
(Spain), represented initially by P. Koch Moreno and sub-
sequently by M. Aznar Alonso, lawyers, v Office for Harmonis-             2.    The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Agents: O. Montalto and J. Crespo Carrillo), the other party to
the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for              (1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs)(OHIM) being Granjas Castelló, SA, established in


title: Case T-308/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Neue Halberg-Guss v Commission

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/40

         Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Neue Halberg-Guss v Commission
   (Case T-308/14) (1)

   (2015/C 155/56)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case T-315/99: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Autobedrijf Geve v Commission

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/29

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Autobedrijf Geve v Commission
   (Case T-315/99) (1)

   (2006/C 310/63)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Second Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 4.3.2000.


title: Case C-333/12: Action brought on 11 July 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/24

         Action brought on 11 July 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-333/12)
   2012/C 287/46
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, C. Vrignon and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, (1) and in any event by not informing the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;

               —

               impose on the Republic of Poland, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to comply with the obligation to notify measures transposing Directive 2007/65, at a daily rate of EUR 112 190,40 and payable from the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposition of the directive expired on 19 December 2011.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 332, p. 27.


title: Case T-357/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 May 2007 — Freistaat Sachsen v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by the authorities of the Free State of Saxony — Aid scheme for small and medium-sized enterprises — Accelerated clearance procedure — Application ratione temporis of the Community guidelines and of the exempting regulation concerning aid to small and medium-sized enterprises — Aid scheme notified before the entry into force of the exempting regulation — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Complete notification)

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/19

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 May 2007 — Freistaat Sachsen v Commission
   (Case T-357/02) (1)

   (State aid - Aid granted by the authorities of the Free State of Saxony - Aid scheme for small and medium-sized enterprises - Accelerated clearance procedure - Application ratione temporis of the Community guidelines and of the exempting regulation concerning aid to small and medium-sized enterprises - Aid scheme notified before the entry into force of the exempting regulation - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Complete notification)
   (2007/C 140/29)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Freistaat Sachsen (Germany) (represented by: T. Lübbig, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and J. Flett, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of the second paragraph of Article 2 and of Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2003/226/EC of 24 September 2002 on an aid scheme which the Federal Republic of Germany is planning to implement — ‘Guidelines on assistance for SMEs — Improving business efficiency in Saxony’: Subprogrammes 1 (Coaching), 4 (Participation in fairs), 5 (Cooperation) and 7 (Design promotion) (OJ 2003 L 91, p. 13),
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the second paragraph of Article 2 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2003/226/EC of 24 September 2002 on an aid scheme which the Federal Republic of Germany is planning to implement — ‘Guidelines on assistance for SMEs — Improving business efficiency in Saxony’: Subprogrammes 1 (Coaching), 4 (Participation in fairs), 5 (Cooperation) and 7 (Design promotion);

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 8.2.2003.