title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 29 February 1996 in Case C-300/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Andalusia): Tirma SA v. Administración General del Estado (Protocol No 2 to the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal - Canary Islands - Customs territory of the Community - Processed agricultural products - Exemption from customs duties - Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 3033/80 - Variable component)

text:
4 . 5 . 96            I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 133/9
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Sixth Chamber)                                                     (First Chamber)
                       of 29 February 1996                                                  of 29 February 1996
in Case C-239/94: Commission of the European                           in Case C-300/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                    Communities v. Ireland ( l )                       the Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Andalusia ): Tirma SA v.
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/263/EEC —                           Administración General del Estado (M
                        Failure to transpose)                          (Protocol No 2 to the Act ofAccession ofSpain andPortugal
                             ( 96/C 133/ 17                            — Canary Islands — Customs territory of the Community
                                                                       — Processed agricultural products — Exemption from
                                                                       customs duties — Article S of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 3033/80 — Variable component)
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/ 18
                 (Language of tbe case: English)
                                                                                (Language of tbe case: Spanisb)
In Case C-239/94 : Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : Thomas F. Cusack and David
Mclntyre ) v. Ireland ( Agent: Michael A. Buckley) —
application for a declaration that, by failing to bring into
force within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and           (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council                      published in the European Court Reports)
Directive 91/263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning
telecommunications terminal equipment, including the
mutual recognition of their conformity ( OJNoL128,1991 ,               In Case C-300/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
p . 1 ), or alternatively, by failing to inform the Commission         of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia ( High
of such measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations         Court of Justice ), Andalusia ( Spain ), for a preliminary ruling
under the Directive, in particular Article 17 thereof, and             in the proceedings pending before that court between Tirma
under the third paragraph of Article 1 89 of the EC Treaty —           SA and Administraciôn           General    del   Estado  on the
the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris,               interpretation of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3033/80 of
President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini                     11 November 1980 laying down the trade arrangements
( Rapporteur ), F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn,               applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of
Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,             agricultural products ( OJ No L 323 , 1980 , p . 1 ), as regards
has given a judgment on 29 February 1996 , in which it:                the variable component of the charge applicable to goods
                                                                       resulting from the processing of agricultural products — the
                                                                       Court ( First Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward
                                                                       ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, P. Jann and
                                                                       M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General ; R.
1 , declares that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                       Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 February 1996
      prescribed period the laws, regulations and                      in which it rules :
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 91 /263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the
      approximation of the laws of the Member States
      concerning telecommunications terminal equipment,
      including the mutual recognition of their conformity,            The variable component of the charge concerning processed
      Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under               agricultural products, provided for in Article 5 of Council
      Article 17 of the Directive and under the third                  Regulation (EEC) No 3033/80 of 11 November 1980 laying
      paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty;                       down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods
                                                                       resulting from the processing of agricultural products, falls
                                                                       within the arrangements laid down in Article 1 (1 ) to (3) of
                                                                       Protocol No 2 to the Act of Accession of the Kingdom of
                                                                       Spain and the Portuguese Republic, and is not covered by
2 , orders Ireland to pay the costs.                                   the exemption laid down in Article 2 of that Protocol.
 (') OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .                                     0 ) OJ No C 370 , 24 . 12 . 1994 .


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 9 November 1995 in Case C-38/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales): The Queen v. Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte Country Landowners' Association (Common organization of the markets in sheepmeat and goatmeat and in beef and veal - Grant of transferable premium rights to producers - Compensation for landowners)

text:
20 . 1 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 16/3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       and (EEC) No 714/89, nor any general principle of
                        (Third Chamber)                                    Community law require Member States to introduce a
                                                                           mechanism for compensating detriment caused to
                     of 9 November 1995                                    owners of agricultural land by the introduction of a
in Case C-38/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the               system of premium rights linked to producers of
Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High                 sheepmeat, goatmeat or beef and veal, even where
Court of Justice of England and Wales ): The Queen v.                      premium rights are transferred by producers who do not
Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte                      own the land on which they farm.
            Country Landowners' Association (')
(Common organization of the markets in sheepmeat and
goatmeat and in beef and veal — Grant of transferable                 2 . Consideration of Articles 13 and 15 of Regulation
premium rights to producers — Compensation for                             (EEC) No 3567192, cited above, and of Articles 39 and
                           landowners)                                     55 of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92, cited above, has
                          ( 96/C 16/05 )                                   disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect their
                                                                           validity.
                                                                      (M OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-38/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty from the Divisional Court of the Queen's
Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and
Wales for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between the Queen and the Minister for
Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte Country
Landowners' Association — on the interpretation and                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
validity of Articles 13 and 15 of Commission Regulation                                    of 9 November 1995
( EEC) No 3567/92 of 10 December 1992 laying down                     in Case C-91/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
detailed rules for the application of the individual limits,          Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris ): Criminal proceedings
national reserves and transfer of rights provided for in              against Thierry Tranchant and Téléphone Store SARL,
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3013/89 on the common                                     party liable in civil law (*)
organization of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat ( OJ
No L 362, p . 41 ), and Articles 39 and 55 of Commission              (Commission Directive 88/301/EEC — Independence of
Regulation ( EEC ) No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992 laying              bodies responsible for monitoring the application of
down detailed rules for the application of the premium                         technical specifications — Test laboratories)
schemes provided for in Council Regulation ( EEC )                                              ( 96/C 16/06 )
No 805/68 on the common organization of the market in
beef and repealing Regulations ( EEC ) No 1244/82 and
( EEC) No 714/89 ( OJ No L 391 , p . 20 ) — the Court (Third
Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida                                     (Language of the case: French)
( Rapporteur), acting as President of Chamber, C. Gulmann
and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General;
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
judgment on 9 November 1 995 , in which it ruled:                               published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-91 /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
1 . Neither Articles 13 and 15 of Commission Regulation               the EEC Treaty from the Tribunal de Grande Instance
     (EEC) No 3567/92 of 10 December 1992 laying down                 ( Regional Court), Paris, for a preliminary ruling in the
     detailed rules for the application of the individual limits,     criminal proceedings pending before that court against
     national reserves and transfer of rights provided for in         Thierry Tranchant and Téléphone Store SARL, party liable
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 on the common                in civil law — on the interpretation of Commission Directive
     organization of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat             88/301 /EEC of 16 May 1988 on competition in the markets
     nor Articles 39 and 55 of Commission Regulation                  in telecommunications terminal equipment ( OJ No L 131 ,
     (EEC) No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down                 p . 73 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
     detailed rules for the application of the premium                President, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch
    schemes provided for in Council Regulation (EEC)                  ( Rapporteur ) ( Presidents of Chambers ), F. A. Schockweiler,
     No 805/68 on the common organization of the market              J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
     in beef and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 1244/82              J. L. Murray, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2002 in Case T-81/00: Associação Comercial de Aveiro v Commission of the European Communities (Social policy — European Social Fund — Application for annulment — Reduction of financial assistance — Statement of reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
24.8.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 202/21
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 14 May 2002                                                              of 3 July 2002
in Case T-81/00: Associação Comercial de Aveiro                           in Case T-179/00: A. Menarini — Industrie Farmaceutiche
      v Commission of the European Communities (1)                         Riunite Srl v Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties (1)
(Social policy — European Social Fund — Application for
annulment — Reduction of financial assistance — State-                     (Council Directive 92/27/EEC — Labelling of a medicinal
       ment of reasons — Manifest error of assessment)                     product — Centralised procedure for the authorisation of
                                                                           medicinal products — Inclusion of the local representative’s
                                                                           logo in the blue box on the outer packaging of a medicinal
                                                                                product)
                          (2002/C 202/29)
                                                                                (2002/C 202/30)
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-81/00, Associação Comercial de Aveiro, established
in Aveiro (Portugal), represented by J. Amaral e Almeida and
B. Diniz de Ayala, lawyers, with an address for service in                 In Case T-179/00, A. Menarini — Industrie Farmaceutiche
Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities                       Riunite Srl, established in Florence (Italy), represented by
(Agents: H. Speyart and M. França): Application for annulment              D. Waelbroeck and D. Brinckman, lawyers, with an address
of Commission Decision C(99) 3721 of 30 November 1999                      for service in Luxembourg, supported by European Federation
reducing the European Social Fund assistance granted in the                of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, established in
framework of project No 891038/P 3 to Associação Comercial                Brussels (Belgium), represented by D. Anderson QC, J. Strat-
de Aveiro, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),                    ford, Barrister, I. Dodds-Smith and A. Wearing, Solicitors, with
composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and              an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the
P. Lindh, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar,           European Communities (Agents: R. Wainwright and
has given a judgment on 14 May 2002, in which it has ruled:                H. Støvlbæk): Application for annulment of the Commission’s
                                                                           decision of 17 April 2000 rejecting the request by the applicant
                                                                           to include its logo in the blue box of the packaging of
1.    Annuls Commission Decision C(96) 3721 of 30 November                 OPTRUMA, a pharmaceutical product registered under the
      1999 reducing the European Social Fund assistance granted to         centralised authorisation procedure, the Court of First Instance
      the Associação Comercial de Aveiro in the context of project        (Fourth Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili
      No 891038/P 3 in so far as it reduces the amount of the              and P. Mengozzi, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator,
      services invoiced by SI — Sistemas de Informação Lda under          for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July 2002, in
      subheading 14.3.9, hire and rental charges;                          which it:
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                          1.    Annuls the Commission Decision of 17 April 2000 rejecting
                                                                                the applicant’s request to include its logo in the blue box of the
                                                                                packaging of OPTRUMA, a pharmaceutical product registered
3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one                 under the centralised authorisation procedure;
      third of those incurred by the applicant;
                                                                           2.    Orders the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those of
4.    Orders the applicant to bear two thirds of its own costs.                  the applicant and of the intervener.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.                                                 (1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 December 1997 in Case T-208/96: Eberhard Eiselt v. Commission of the European Communities (Vocational training course - Refusal to participate - Infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equal treatment - Claim for compensation for damage suffered)

text:
C 55/24               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.2.98
1. The decision of the Committee of the Regions of                   3. The parties shall each bear their own costs.
    20 September 1995, in so far as it refuses to appoint
    the applicant to one of the vacant posts referred to in          (1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
    notice of internal competition A/02/95, is annulled.
2. The decision of the Committee of the Regions of
    20 September 1995, in so far as it appoints to certain
    vacant posts referred to in notice of internal
    competition A/02/95 a number of successful
    candidates classified below the applicant on the list of           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    eligible candidates, is annulled.                                                    of 18 December 1997
                                                                     in Joined Cases T-159/94 and T-160/94: Ajinomoto Co.,
3. The Committee of the Regions is ordered to pay the                Inc. and The NutraSweet Company v. Council of the
    costs.                                                                                European Union (1)
                                                                     (Action for annulment Ð Dumping Ð Aspartame Ð
(1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
                                                                     Right to a fair hearing Ð Normal value Ð Reference
                                                                                country Ð Patent Ð Injury)
                                                                                (98/C 55/50)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 17 December 1997
                                                                     In Joined Cases T-159/94: Ajinomoto Co., Inc., established
in Case T-208/96: Eberhard Eiselt v. Commission of the               in Tokyo, represented by Mario Siragusa, of the Rome
                  European Communities (1)                           Bar, and Till Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt, Frankfurt am
                                                                     Main, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
(Vocational training course Ð Refusal to participate Ð               Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 rue Goethe, and T-160/94:
Infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and of           The NutraSweet Company, established at Deerfield,
the principle of equal treatment Ð Claim for                         Illinois (United States of America), represented initially by
             compensation for damage suffered)                       Otto Grolig, Peter Bogaert and Koen Vanhaerents, and
                         (98/C 55/49)                                subsequently by Otto Grolig, Jean-FrancËois Bellis and
                                                                     Fabrizio Di Gianni, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                                                                     for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      Loesch, 11 rue Goethe, against Council of the European
                                                                     Union (Agents: Erik Stein, Guus Houttuin, Hans-Jürgen
In Case T-208/96: Eberhard Eiselt, an official of the                Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch), supported by Commission
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                  of the European Communities (Agents: Eric L. White,
Ispra (Italy), represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, of the            Nicholas Khan, assisted initially by Mark Cran and
Vicenza Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            subsequently by Fergus Randolph) Ð applications for
the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt,               annulment of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1391/91 of
against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:               27 May 1991 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
Gianluigi Valsesia) Ð application for, first, the annulment          imports of aspartame originating in Japan and the United
of a decision of the Commission refusing the applicant the           States of America (OJ L 134, 29.5.1991, p. 1) Ð the
further vocational training he requested and, secondly, the          Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended
annulment of the decision of the Commission assigning                Composition), composed of: R. García-Valdecasas,
him to duties which did not correspond to his                        President, V. Tiili, J. Azizi, R. M. Moura Ramos and M.
qualifications, his professional experience or to the duties         Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
for which he was initially recruited Ð the Court of First            has given a judgment on 18 December 1997, in which it:
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts,
President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair,
                                                                     1. dismisses the applications;
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
17 December 1997, the operative part of which is as
follows:                                                             2. orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to
                                                                          pay the costs of the Council;
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible inasmuch
    as it seeks a finding that the allocation to the applicant
                                                                     3. orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
    of duties for which he is not trained and for which he
    was not initially employed is unlawful in so far as it is
    not in the interests of the institution.                         (1) OJ C 291, 8.11.1991.
2. The remainder of the application is dismissed.


C 397/16             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  19.12.98
Ioannou, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R.                aim is to defend the collective interests of its members Ð
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 November              whether they are workers, employers, independent
1998, in which it:                                                 professionals or traders carrying on a particular economic
                                                                   activity Ð and to represent them vis-aÁ-vis the appropriate
                                                                   third parties, including the public authorities.
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                   (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
                                                                   Action brought on 14 October 1998 by the Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
                                                                                (Case C-367/98)
                                                                                (98/C 397/27)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                   An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                    of 12 November 1998                            before the Court of Justice on 14 October 1998 by the
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities, represented
in Case C-149/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                   by António Caeiro, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as
the VAT and Duties Tribunal): Institute of the Motor
                                                                   Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    Industry v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise (1)
                                                                   office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal
(VAT Ð Exemptions Ð Non-profit-making organisations                Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
             with aims of a trade-union nature)
                        (98/C 397/26)
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
               (Language of the case: English)                     Ð declare that, by enacting and maintaining in force Law
                                                                       No 11/90 of 5 April 1990, and in particular
                                                                       Article 13(3) thereof, the decree-laws privatising
                                                                       undertakings subsequently enacted in implementation
In Case C-149/97: reference to the Court under Article 177             thereof, and Decree-Law No 380/93 of 15 November
of the EC Treaty from the VAT and Duties Tribunal,                     1993 and Decree-Law No 65/94 of 28 February 1994,
London, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                    the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its
pending before that court between Institute of the Motor               obligations under the EC Treaty, in particular
Industry and Commissioners of Customs and Excise Ð on                  Articles 52, 56, 58, 73 et seq. (which superseded
the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(l) of the Sixth Council           Article 67 et seq. of the EC Treaty) and Article 221,
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                             and Articles 221 and 231 of the Act of Accession of
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating                the Portuguese Republic; (1)
to turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:
uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1)
Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G.
Kapteyn (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G. F.              Ð order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
Mancini, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and K. M.
Ioannou, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; L.
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
judgment on 12 November 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                   Ð By providing that foreign capital holdings in privatised
For the purposes of Article 13A(1)(l) of the Sixth Council             undertakings may not exceed a specified percentage,
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                             and including in that category holdings by Community
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating                investors, the Portuguese legislation discriminates
to turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:                  between national citizens and entities and those of
uniform basis of assessment, an organisation with aims of              other Member States, thereby infringing Articles 52 et
a trade-union nature means an organisation whose main                  seq. and 73 et seq. of the EC Treaty.
 ---pagebreak--- 19.12.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 397/17
Ð The requirement of authorisation from the Ministry of                  competent institution or in accordance with that
    Finance for the transfer of shares representing more                 organised by the State on whose territory the hospital
    than 10 % of the voting capital of privatised                        treatment has taken place?
    companies (or of a specified participation in financial
    institutions), in the terms set out in Decree-Law
    No 380/93, is incompatible with Articles 73(b) and 52
    of the EC Treaty, the requirement of such                       Ð Is a limitation of the amount reimbursed under the
    authorisation could only be justified by imperative                  legislation of the State of the competent institution
    reasons in the general interest and if they were based               permitted, having regard to Article 36 of Regulation
    on objective criteria which are consistent and public in             (EEC) No 1408/71 which refers to reimbursement in
    character, in the absence of which that requirement                  full?
    could be used so as to keep control of the undertaking
    in question in the hands of nationals. The Portuguese
    authorities have not indicated what imperative reasons          (1) (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).
    in the general interest might justify such a measure. As
    regards the criteria which are to serve as guidance for
    the grant of authorisation, the Commission continues
    to hold the view that such criteria either are not
    indicated in the legislation or, in the event of Decree-
    Law No 380/93 referring to Decree-Law No 11/90,
    the prescribed criteria may be interpreted and applied
    in such a way as to benefit Portuguese citizens, to the         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional
    detriment of the nationals of other Member States.              Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
                                                                    13 March 1998, in the case of The Queen against
(1) OJ L 302, 15.11.1985.                                           Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte:
                                                                    Trevor Robert Fisher and Penny Fisher trading as T. R.
                                                                                and P. Fisher (a firm)
                                                                                (Case C-369/98)
                                                                                (98/C 397/29)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du
Travail, Mons, by judgment of that court of 9 October
1998 in the case of Abdon Vanbraekel, Marie-Ange
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Vanbraekel,      Marie-Paule    Vanbraekel,     Marie-Claire
                                                                    European Communities by an order of the Divisional
Vanbraekel, Brigitte Vanbraekel, Edith Vanbraekel and
                                                                    Court, Queen's Bench Division, of 13 March 1998, which
Alexandre Vanbraekel v. Alliance Nationale des
                                                                    was received at the Court Registry on 16 October 1998,
                   MutualiteÂs ChreÂtiennes
                                                                    for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against
                       (Case C-368/98)                              Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte:
                                                                    Trevor Robert Fisher and Penny Fisher trading as T. R.
                        (98/C 397/28)
                                                                    and P. Fisher (a firm), on the following questions:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Sixth                     (1) (i) Do Articles 3(1) and 9 of Regulation (EEC)
Chamber of the Cour du Travail (Higher Labour Court),                          No 3508/92 (1), coupled with the general
Mons, of 9 October 1998, which was received at the                             principles of Community law, permit information
Court Registry on 16 October 1998, for a preliminary                           held on a computerised data base set up under
ruling in the case of Abdon Vanbraekel, Marie-Ange                             Article 2, relating to data supplied by or on
Vanbraekel, Marie Paule Vanbraekel, Marie-Claire                               behalf of a former claimant for payments under
Vanbraekel, Brigitte Vanbraekel, Edith Vanbraekel and                          AAPs, to be disclosed to third parties?
Alexandre Vanbraekel v. Alliance Nationale des
MutualiteÂs ChreÂtiennes on the following questions:
                                                                          (ii) If the answer to question 1(i) is yes', is the
Where, in the context of proceedings before it, a national                     disclosure which the competent authority is
court has acknowledged that hospital treatment in a                            lawfully required to provide limited, as regards
Member State other than that of the competent institution                      the persons to whom disclosure can be made:
was necessary, although the prior authorisation provided
for in Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) was                       (a) to persons authorised by the former claimant
refused:                                                                            on the UK Base Form; and/or
Ð Must the costs of hospital treatment be reimbursed                           (b) to persons who require the information
    in accordance with the scheme of the State of the                               in connection with their application for


title: Action brought on 30 July 1997 by Guérin Automobiles against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-226/97)

text:
C 318/28              1 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 18 . 10 . 97
2 . declare that the applicant is entitled to have her initial         The applicants claim that the Court should:
    classification reviewed as requested by way of the
    document of 21 June 1996 ;
                                                                       — declare that the Commission has failed to act,
3 . order the European Commission to pay:                              — order the Commission to pay the costs .
    — the difference in the applicant's salary as from the
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         date when the decision amending the criteria for
         classification began to produce its effects, that is
         5 October 19 95 , together with the accrued                   The applicants complain that the defendant has failed
         interest,                                                     to enforce the judgments of the Court of First Instance
                                                                       of 29 June 1993 ( 1 ) and 18 September 1996 (2 ). Those
    — ECU 1 000 by way of compensation for the non                    judgments were delivered following a complaint made
         material damage caused, and                                   against certain undertakings alleging that they had
                                                                       colluded to secure exclusive control of the market for
                                                                       Japanese vehicles in France by excluding products of the
     — the costs of these proceedings .                                makes imported by the applicants, and that they had
                                                                       organized the division between them of sub-quotas under
                                                                       a system known as 'voluntary limitation ', eliminating all
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    competition .
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those               The applicants claim that, following the annulment by the
relied on in Case T-16/97 (').                                         aforementioned judgment of 29 June 1993 of the decision
                                                                       rejecting the complaints, the Commission maintained its
                                                                       position in a letter of 9 March 1994 which formed the
In particular, the applicant considers that the varying of             subject matter of a fresh action for annulment culminating
an   internal    Commission decision as a         result of the        in the judgment of 18 September 1996 , likewise referred
annulment by the Court of previous legislation, where                  to above, by which the decision rejecting the complaints
such legislation was the basis for an erroneous                        was annulled .
classification, constitutes a new fact capable of starting the
period for lodging the complaint running again.
                                                                       In those circumstances, by letter of 11 April 1997, Asia
                                                                       Motor France, Mr Cesbron, EAS and Monin Automobiles
(') OJ C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .                                    and their liquidators requested the defendant to send to
                                                                       the French importers of the Honda, Mazda, Mitsubishi ,
                                                                       Toyota and Nissan marks a statement of objections, in
                                                                       order that, at the very least, a finding should finally
                                                                        be made as to the existence of the restrictive practice
                                                                       complained of and that steps should be taken to impose
                                                                        penalties in respect of it.
Action brought on 30 July 1997 by Asia Motor France
 and others against the Commission of the European
                             Communities                                Following the expiry of a period of two months, the
                                                                        applicants brought the present action .
                          ( Case T-225/97)
                            ( 97/C 318/55 )                             (') Case T-7/92 ([ 1993 ] ECR 11-669 ).
                                                                        ( 2 ) Case T-387/94 ([ 19961 ECR 11-961 ).
                 (Language of the case: French)
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Instance of the European Communities on 30 July 1997                   Action brought on 30 July 1997 by Guerin Automobiles
 by Asia Motor France, the principal place of business of                    against the Commission of the European Communities
 which is at Livange ( Luxembourg ), Jean-Michel Cesbron,                                          Case T-226/97 )
 businessman , trading as JMC Automobiles, residing at
 Livange ( Luxembourg ), Monin Automobiles, the principal                                           ( 97/C 318/56
 place of business of which is at Bourg-de-Peage ( France ),
 and Europe Auto Service ( EAS ), the principal place of                                  (Language of the case: French)
 business of which is at Livange ( Luxembourg ), represented
 by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an
 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   An action against the Commission of the European
 Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Beatrix de Bourbon .                             Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- 18 . 10 . 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 318/29
Instance of the European Communities on 30 July 1997                     Action brought on 4 August 1997 by Irish Sugar pic
by Guerin Automobiles, the principal place of business of                  against the Commission of the European Communities
which is at Alengon (France ), represented by Jean-Claude
                                                                                ( Case T-228/97)
Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue                                                ( 97/C 318/57)
Beatrix de Bourbon .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                               (Language of the case: English)
— declare that the Commission has failed to act,
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                         Instance of the European Communities on 4 August 1997
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      by Irish Sugar pic, represented by Alexander Bohlke,
                                                                         Rechtsanwalt, and Scott Crosby, Solicitor, with an address
                                                                         for service in Luxembourg at the Elvinger & Dessoy, 31 ,
The applicant states that on 3 August 1992 it submitted a                rue d'Eich, Luxembourg.
complaint to the Commission contesting the compatibility
of the Volvo dealership contract with the competition
rules under the EC Treaty, in particular Commission
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85 of 12 December 1984 on the
application of Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EEC Treaty to certain
categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing
agreements ( ! ). On 5 May 1994, not having succeeded in                 — annul the Commission Decision C ( 97 ) 1315 final,
obtaining from the Commission a response as to the steps
which it intended to take in relation to the complaint, the
applicant brought an action before the Court of First                    — alternatively, reduce the fine imposed in Article 2, and
Instance of the European Communities for a declaration                        annul Article 3 , third and fourth paragraphs, in so far
of failure to act (2 ). During the course of those                            as they go beyond the scope of the abuses found in
proceedings, the Commission sent a notification under                         Article 1 , points 5 and 6 ,
Article 6 of Regulation No 99/63 , informing the applicant
of the reasons for which it did not propose to give
individual consideration to the complaint, in particular the             — order the Commission to pay the costs.
fact that it was then engaged in considering other similar
cases and that it was necessary to await their outcome .
The      Court     of    First   Instance  considered   that   that
notification constituted a definition of position within the             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
meaning of Article 175 of the EC Treaty and that there
was therefore no need to give a ruling on the application
for a declaration of failure to act. The applicant points out            The contested decision states that the applicant has
that whilst, in the appeal proceedings brought by it                     infringed Article 86 of the EC Treaty by having recourse
against that judgment ( 3 ), the Court of Justice declared               to methods different from those which condition normal
that a notification under Article 6 does not constitute a                competition in products or services based on traders'
measure open to review, it also stated that it is always                 performance, the effect thereof being that the maintenance
open to the complainant undertaking subsequently to                      of the degree of competition still existing in the market
serve formal notice on the Commission calling upon it to                 and the growth of that competition has been hindered. For
adopt a definitive decision .                                            these infringements, also cited in the decision, a fine of
                                                                         ECU 8 800 000 was imposed on the applicant.
In those circumstances, on 2 and 11 April 1997 the
applicant formally called on the Commission to serve a
statement of objections on Volvo .                                       The applicant pleads misapplication of Article 86 of the
                                                                         EC Treaty. It rejects the Commission's views on joint
The applicant considers that it is now entitled, over two                dominance or dominance in the industrial sugar market
months later and five years after submission of the                      and on alleged abuses on the industrial market and the
                                                                         retail market .
original complaint, to bring the present proceedings for a
declaration of failure to act and that it is justified in so
doing.
                                                                         Furthermore, the applicant pleads misapplication of
(') OJL 15 , 18 . 1 . 1985 , p . 16 .                                    Article 15 (2 ) of Regulation No 17. The fine is too high
( 2 ) Case T- 1 86/94, Guérin Automobiles v. Commission [ 1995 ]         and not in line with previous practice . The fine ignores the
      ECR 11-1756 , ( judgment of 27 June 1995 ).                        constraints of the EC sugar regime, treating the applicant
( 3 ) Case C-282/95 P, Guêrin Automobiles v. Commission [ 1997]          worse than it does producers of industrial products. The
      ECR 1-1531 , ( judgment of 18 March 1997 ).                        Commission is not only in breach of its duty to take into
                                                                         account the regulatory and economic context of the
                                                                         practices called in question but also penalizes, in part,


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 25 April 1996 in Case C-274/93: Commission of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - Failure to implement Council Directive 86/609/EEC - Protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes)

text:
 No C 180/ 12         EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 6 . 96
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Fifth Chamber)                                                       ( Sixth Chamber)
                      of 28 March 1996                                                        of 25 April 1996
 in Case C-318/94: Commission of the European                        in Case       C-274/93 : Commission of the European
      Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany ( ! )                     Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( ï )
 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Public works contracts —           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
              Failure to publish a tender notice)                    implement Council Directive 86/609/EEC — Protection of
                          { 96/C 180/23 )                            animals used for experimental and other scientific
                                                                                purposes)
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/24 )
               (Language of tbe case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Frencb)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-274/93 : Commission of the European
In Case C-318/94 : Commission of the European                        Communities (Agent: Xavier Lewis ) v . Grand Duchy of
 Communities (Agents : Hendrik van Lier and, initially,              Luxembourg — application for a declaration that, by not
Angela Bardenhewer, and, subsequently, Claudia Schmidt)              adopting, within the prescribed period, all the measures
v. Federal Republic of Germany ( Agents : Ernst Roder and            necessary to comply with Council Directive 86/609/EEC of
Gereon Thiele ) — application for a declaration that, the            24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws,
Waterways and Navigation Office, Emden having awarded                regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
the public works contract for the dredging of the lower Ems          States relating to the protection of animals used for
between Papenburg and Oldersum by negotiated procedure               experimental and other scientific purposes, the Grand
without prior publication of a tender notice in the Official        Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                     under Article 25 of that Directive and under Articles 5 and
Journal ofthe European Communities, the Federal Republic
of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council        189 of the EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),
Directive 71 /305/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning the                composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber, G.
coordination of procedures for the award of public works            Hirsch ( Rapporteur ), F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn
contracts ( OJ, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 682 ), as  and J. L. Murray, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General ;
amended by Council Directive 89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989             H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on
( OJ No L 210, 1989 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),         25 April 1996 , in which it:
composed of D. A. O. Edward ( President of the Chamber),
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. Jann ( Rapporteur), L. Sevon           1 . Dismisses the application as inadmissible.
and M. Wathelet, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 March               2 . Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
                                                                          costs .
1996 , in which it:
                                                                    ( ] ) OJ No C 168 , 19 . 6 . 1993 .
1 . Declares that, the Waterways and Navigation Office,
    Emden having awarded the public works contract for
    the dredging of the lower Ems between Papenburg and
     Oldersum by negotiated procedure without prior
    publication of a tender notice in the Official Journal of                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    the European Communities, the Federal Republic of                                         ( Fifth Chamber )
    Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
    Council Directive 71 /305/EEC of 26 July 1971                                            of 25 April 1996
    concerning the coordination of procedures for the               in     Case C-87/94: Commission of the European
    award of public works contracts, as amended by                               Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium ( J )
    Council Directive 89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989.
                                                                    (Public contracts — Transport sector — Directive
                                                                                90/531/EEC)
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/25 )
2 . Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
    costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(') OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                    In Case C-87/94, Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities ( Agent: Hendrik van Lier) v. Kingdom of


title: Joined Cases C-539/10 P and C-550/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 November 2012 — Stichting Al-Aqsa v Council of the European Union (C-539/10 P), Kingdom of the Netherlands v Stichting Al-Aqsa, Council of the European Union, European Commission (C-550/10 P) (Appeals — Common foreign and security policy — Combating terrorism — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities — Freezing of assets — Common Position 2001/931/CFSP — Article 1(4) and (6) — Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 — Article 2(3) — Inclusion of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts and maintaining it on that list — Conditions — Decision of a competent authority — Repeal of a national measure — Actions for annulment — Admissibility of the appeal — Right to respect for property — Principle of proportionality — Article 253 EC — Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 November 2012 — Stichting Al-Aqsa v Council of the European Union (C-539/10 P), Kingdom of the Netherlands v Stichting Al-Aqsa, Council of the European Union, European Commission (C-550/10 P)
   (Joined Cases C-539/10 P and C-550/10 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Common foreign and security policy - Combating terrorism - Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities - Freezing of assets - Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Article 1(4) and (6) - Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 - Article 2(3) - Inclusion of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts and maintaining it on that list - Conditions - Decision of a competent authority - Repeal of a national measure - Actions for annulment - Admissibility of the appeal - Right to respect for property - Principle of proportionality - Article 253 EC - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based)
   2013/C 9/09
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

   (C-593/10 P)

      Appellant: Stichting Al-Aqsa (represented by: M.J.G. Uiterwaal and A.M. van Eik, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan, B. Driessen and R. Szostak, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the Council of the European Union: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels and M. Bulterman, Agents), European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and M.P. van Nuffel, Agents)
   (C-550/10 P)

      Appellant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels and M. Noort, Agents

      Other parties to the proceedings: Stichting Al-Aqsa (represented by: A.M. van Eik, advocaat), Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan, B. Driessen and R. Szostak, Agents), European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and P. van Nuffel, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 9 September 2010 — Al-Aqsa v Council (T-348/07), by which the General Court annulled Council Decision 2007/445/EC of 28 June 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC; Council Decision 2007/868/EC of 20 December 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2007/445; Council Decision 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2008 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2007/868; Council Decision 2009/62/EC of 26 January 2009 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2008/583; and Council Regulation (EC) No 501/2009 of 15 June 2009 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2009/62, in so far as those acts concern Stichting Al-Aqsa.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 September 2010 in Case T–348/07 Al Aqsa v Council;

               2.

               Dismisses the action and the appeal brought by Stichting Al Aqsa;

               3.

               Orders Stichting Al Aqsa to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Council of the European Union in the context of the present appeals and those incurred by the Council at first instance;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission, as intervener before the General Court of the European Union and before the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as intervener before the General Court, to bear their own costs incurred at both instances.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.


title: Case T-62/00: Action brought on 20 March 2000 by the Associazione Italiana Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.5.2000             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 135/27
Action brought on 20 March 2000 by Associazione Pro-                      In support of its claim, the applicant alleges that:
duttori Olivicoli Laziali — APOL — against Commission
                of the European Communities
                                                                          — by making the ‘objective finding’ that it never ‘carried on a
                                                                              significant economic activity’, the defendant has not taken
                         (Case T-61/00)                                       into account the fact that the situation was beyond the
                                                                              applicant’s control;
                        (2000/C 135/47)
                                                                          — Infringement and misapplication of Article 17(2)(b) of
                                                                              Regulation No 355/77, in particular, inasmuch as it may
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                            be doubted whether it is correct to interpret that provision
                                                                              to mean that withdrawal of the national contribution,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     granted without any consultation with the other contribu-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    ting body, should automatically entail withdrawal of
European Communities on 20 March 2000 by Associazione                         Community funding.
Produttori Olivicoli Laziali — APOL, represented by Emilio
Cappelli, Paolo De Caterini, Fabio Lepri and Romano Vaccarel-
la, of the Rome Bar.
                                                                          (1) OJ 1977 L 51, p. 1.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Annul Commission Decision C(1999)4561 of 14 Decem-
     ber 1999 in accordance with the second paragraph of
     Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, the
     second paragraph of Article 230 EC) and, in so far as
     necessary and appropriate, disapply all other measures
     flowing therefrom;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          Action brought on 20 March 2000 by the Associazione
                                                                          Italiana Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO) against the Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
The present application has been brought against Commission                                        (Case T-62/00)
Decision C(1999)4561 of 14 December 1999 withdrawing
the financial contribution granted to the applicant, an associ-
ation of producers operating in Lazio, by Decision C(84)                                          (2000/C 135/48)
1100/293. The applicant observes that in March 1983 it
submitted to the Commission, through the offices of the Lazio
Regional authority and the Ministry of Agriculture, a duly                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
drawn up request seeking Community and national contri-
butions for the construction of a plant for the storing,
processing and marketing of olive oil, in accordance with                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 of 15 February 1977 on                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
common measures to improve the conditions under which                     European Communities on 20 March 2000 by the Associa-
agricultural products are processed and marketed (1).                     zione Italiana Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO), represented by
                                                                          Emilio Cappelli, Paolo De Caterini, Fabio Lepri and Romano
Once the plant had been constructed, however, the applicant               Vaccarella, of the Rome Bar.
soon found itself in difficulty with regard to running it within
the means it could afford, given the low take-up by its own
members of the marketing opportunities now open to them,                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
moreover, the market conditions had in the meantime changed
entirely. A modest level of activity was nevertheless achieved
periodically from the olive oil 1991-1992 marketing year.                 — annul Commission Decision C(1999) 4559 of 14 Decem-
Thus, in the summer of 1994, the applicant decided to seek a                  ber 1999 in accordance with Articles 173 of the EC Treaty
private partner.                                                              (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC) and Article 174
                                                                              of the EC Treaty (now Article 231 EC) and, in so far as is
                                                                              necessary and appropriate, disapply all other measures
Following certain difficulties with that partner, which led the               flowing therefrom;
applicant to bring the matter before the courts a receiver was
finally appointed. All of this was necessarily detrimental to the
applicant’s business activities.                                          — order the Commission to pay the costs of the action.
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.5.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 20 March 2000 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-63/00)
The present application has been brought against Commission
Decision C(1999) 4559 withdrawing the financial contribution
granted to the applicant, a national union of producers’                                          (2000/C 135/49)
associations in the sector, by Decision C(84) 500/213 of
29 June 1984. The financial contribution had been requested
pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 of 15 Februa-
ry 1977 on common measures to improve the conditions                                        (Language of the case: French)
under which agricultural products are processed and market-
ed (1), for the purpose of building three facilities for the storage,    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
processing and marketing of olive oil in the communes of                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Castri (Lecce), Eboli (Salerno) and S. Lorenzo (Regio Calabria).         European Communities on 20 March 2000 by Lars Bo Ras-
                                                                         mussen, residing at Dalheim, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg,
                                                                         represented by Michel Karp, of the Luxembourg Bar.
The contested decision is based on three main heads of
complaint: the funded establishments failed to operate, the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
facilities were not built as planned, incorrect information was
provided concerning the existence, in the regions in question,
                                                                         — annul the decision of the Commission of 22 July 1999 not
of facilities for processing and storing olive oil of the same
                                                                              to grant to the applicant special leave of two and a half
type as those funded with the aid of the contribution.
                                                                              days from 11 March (afternoon) to 13 March 1998;
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay to the applicant token damages
The pleas and principal arguments are the same as those made                  of one franc as compensation for the non-material damage
in Case T-61/00 APOL v Commission. In particular, it is                       suffered;
alleged that:
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay the costs.
— the Commission misunderstood the information provided
     by the applicant concerning the existence, in the regions
     in question, of facilities of the same type as those planned        Pleas in law and main arguments
     by the applicant;
                                                                         The applicant contests the refusal of the appointing authority
                                                                         to grant him two and a half days’ special leave in order to
— the Commission was wrong to conclude that certain plant                enable him to vote in the general elections which took place
     and works failed to conform to the applicant’s plans as             in Denmark in 1998.
     approved;
                                                                         It is stated in that respect that he was not able to submit
— the fact that operations fell behind schedule is directly              documentary evidence of his participation in the elections,
     attributable to the financial difficulties which beset the          since Danish legislation does not allow the polling station to
     applicant from 1989 onwards following a loss of more                certify the voter’s participation in the ballot. Consequently, he
     than LIT 3 500 000 000 it incurred when it was required             provided proof of his participation by means of a declaration
     to reimburse the value of produce it was storing which              on his honour.
     was stolen;
                                                                         In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:
— the irregularities in the present case are only partial.
                                                                         — defective and inadequate statement of reasons on which
                                                                              the contested decision is based;
(1) OJ 1977 L 51, p. 1.                                                  — breach of Article 57 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                         — breach of the principle of equal treatment, in so far as,
                                                                              according to the solution adopted by the defendant, only
                                                                              officials who are nationals of a Member State which
                                                                              provides in its legislation for the issue of a certificate of
                                                                              voting can be entitled to the special leave at issue;


title: Case C-60/14: Action brought on 6 February 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/21

         Action brought on 6 February 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-60/14)
   2014/C 93/34
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and Ι. Zerbas, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Decision (1) of the European Commission of 24 May 2011, since it has not taken within the prescribed time-limit all the measures necessary for the recovery of unlawful State aid from the Casinos of Mont Parnès, Corfu and Thessaloniki, and, in any event, since it has not fully informed the Commission of the exact amount to be recovered (principal and interest) from all the beneficiaries of the unlawful State aid and of the other measures which it took in accordance with Article 4 of the Decision;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Hellenic Republic is obliged to have recovered the unlawful State aid by 25 September 2011.

               2.

               The Hellenic Republic is obliged to have informed the Commission of the action which it has undertaken in order to recover the unlawful State aid, and the total amount to be recovered, by 25 July 2011.

               3.

               The Hellenic Republic has not fulfilled any of the above obligations within the prescribed time-limits.

      (1)  Decision of 24 May 2011 on State aid to certain Greek casinos C-16/10 implemented by the Hellenic Republic (OJ 2011 L 285, pp 25-45)


title: Case T-248/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Masafi v OHIM — Hd1 (JUICE masafi) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark JUICE masafi — Earlier national word mark masafi — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Masafi v OHIM — Hd1 (JUICE masafi)
   (Case T-248/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark JUICE masafi - Earlier national word mark masafi - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 016/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Masafi Co. LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Hd1 Ltd (Huddersfield, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2014 (Case R 119/2013-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Hd1 Ltd and Masafi Co. LLC.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Masafi Co. LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Case C-429/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — Evelyn Danqua v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status — National procedural rule laying down, for the submission of an application for subsidiary protection, a period of 15 working days from notification of the rejection of the application for asylum — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — Proper conduct of the procedure for examining the application for subsidiary protection — Proper conduct of the return procedure — Not compatible)

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — Evelyn Danqua v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General
   (Case C-429/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status - National procedural rule laying down, for the submission of an application for subsidiary protection, a period of 15 working days from notification of the rejection of the application for asylum - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Principle of equivalence - Principle of effectiveness - Proper conduct of the procedure for examining the application for subsidiary protection - Proper conduct of the return procedure - Not compatible))
   (2016/C 475/09)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Evelyn Danqua

      Respondents: Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General

      Operative part of the judgment

   The principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding a national procedural rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires an application for subsidiary protection status to be made within a period of 15 working days of notification, by the competent authority, that an applicant whose asylum application has been rejected may make an application for subsidiary protection.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Case C-215/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht Stuttgart by order of that Court of 4 June 2002 in the case of Karin Müller against Postbeamtenkrankenkasse; Additional party: Bundesversicherungsanstalt für Angestellte

text:
24.8.2002              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 202/7
Appeal brought on 7 June 2002 by ABB Asea Brown                        Misinterpretation of Article 44(1)(c): ABB recognizes that
Boveri Ltd against the judgment delivered on 20 March                  general references to other documents cannot compensate for
2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance              deficiencies in a party’s application. However, the Tribunal has
of the European Communities in case T-31/99 between                    found a defect neither in the Application nor in ABB’s Reply.
ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd and the Commission of the                    ABB thus cannot conceivably have compensated a defective
                    European Communities                               submission by a general reference to the Opinion. Moreover,
                                                                       there is, and the Judgment has established, no basis for relying
                                                                       on Article 44(1)(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure by way
                        (Case C-213/02 P)                              of analogy.
                         (2002/C 202/08)                               Misinterpretation of the principle of legitimate expectations:
                                                                       The Judgment fails to recognize that legitimate expectations
                                                                       may arise from the Commission’s fining practice, that the
                                                                       Leniency Notice invites undertakings to rely on these fining
                                                                       practices and that the level of protection of legitimate expec-
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 20 March 2002
                                                                       tations is thereby strengthened, limiting the Commission’s
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       discretion to at will depart from an established practice.
European Communities in case T-31/99 (1) between ABB Asea
Brown Boveri Ltd and the Commission of the European
Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 7 June 2002 by ABB Brown                       The Judgment misapplies Article 15(2) of Regulation No. 17 (2):
Boveri Ltd, established in Zurich (Switzerland), represented by        The Commission has used the defendant undertakings’ turn-
A. Weitbrecht, M. Bay and S. Seelmann-Eggebert, lawyers, with          over in the products affected by the infringement only in order
an address for service in Luxembourg.                                  to divide these undertakings into four categories; in order to
                                                                       ‘reflect the importance of each firm in the pipe sector’, it has not
                                                                       used the turnover affected by the infringement to determine the
                                                                       gravity of the infringement (before taking into account the
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                            duration, aggravating and attenuating circumstances and the
                                                                       reduction under the Leniency Notice).
(1) set aside Sections 2 and 3 of the operative part of the
      Judgment; and
                                                                       (1) OJ C 121, 1.5.1999, p. 16.
                                                                       (2) of the Council of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing
(2) annul Article 3 of the Decision as it relates to the                   Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ L 13, 21.2.1962, p. 204 [SE
      Appellant; and                                                       SER1 (59-62) p. 87]).
(3) further reduce the fine imposed on the Appellant by the
      Decision;
      alternatively to points (2) and (3);
(4) refer the case back to the Tribunal for decision in
      accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice; and
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht
(5) require the Commission to pay the costs of the entire              Stuttgart by order of that Court of 4 June 2002 in the
      proceedings, including those of the Appellant.                   case of Karin Müller against Postbeamtenkrankenkasse;
                                                                       Additional party: Bundesversicherungsanstalt für Ange-
                                                                                stellte
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  (Case C-215/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 202/09)
Misapplication of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure leading to
the rejection as inadmissible of the Opinion submitted by ABB
as an annex to its Reply.
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Stuttgart
Misinterpretation of Article 48(2): The Judgment fails to              (Social Court, Stuttgart) of 4 June 2002, received at the Court
distinguish between new pleas in law and arguments support-            Registry on 10 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
ing pleas already raised. The Opinion’s introduction was               of Karin Müller against Postbeamtenkrankenkasse; Additional
admissible because it amplifies a plea raised in the Application       party: Bundesversicherungsanstalt für Angestellte on the fol-
rather than introducing new pleas in law.                              lowing questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 202/8                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.8.2002
1)    Is a carer within the meaning of Paragraph 44 of                       from the equal pay point of view,
      Volume XI of the Sozialgesetzbuch (German Code of
      Social Law) a worker for the purposes of Article 48 EC                 in the case of a system of pay that awards termination
      and/or Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1)?                   payments to workers essentially based on past loyalty to
                                                                             their employer and graduated according to the length of
      If the answer to Question One is no:                                   their employment in order to tide them over the actual
                                                                             termination of that employment, unless the employment
2)    Where care is provided in the country where the person                 is brought to an end by the worker without good cause,
      reliant on care is insured, does the fact that a carer’s               or if the termination of it is the result of fault on his
      entitlement to social security cover under Paragraph 44                part, whereby individual periods of employment are
      of Volume XI of the Sozialgesetzbuch is conditional on                 categorised as independent and the exclusion of periods
      his or her being resident in that country, as opposed to               of unpaid leave is permitted, if that unpaid leave is taken
      any other Member State, infringe Articles 19, 25 or 28 of              for reasons that are in the worker’s interests and at his or
      Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, following the Court’s                     her own instigation and if those reasons do not constitute
      decisions in Cases 150/85 (Drake) (2) and C-160/96                     a good cause that would entitle the worker to terminate
      (Molenaar) (3)?                                                        his or her employment and safeguard his or her termin-
                                                                             ation payment,
(1) OJ L 149 [1971] of 5.7.1971, p. 2.
(2) [1986] ECR 1995.                                                         the internal worker group covered by Paragraph 8 APSG
(3) [1998] ECR I-843.                                                        (Group A)
                                                                             is to be compared with that group of female workers
                                                                             who decide, in accordance with Paragraph 15 of the
                                                                             Mutterschutzgesetz (Law on Maternity Benefits, herein-
                                                                             after ‘the MSchG’), to take parental leave (‘childcare leave’)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster                           to care for their children without pay after their normal
Gerichtshof by order of that Court of 22 May 2002 in the                     16-week period of ‘maternity leave’ has expired and until,
case of Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerk-                         at the maximum, the child reaches its second birthday
schaft der Privatangestellten against Wirtschaftskammer                      (Group B)?
                           Österreich
                                                                        3.   Are Article 141 EC and Article 1 of Directive 75/
                        (Case C-220/02)                                      117/EEC to be construed as meaning that, where the
                                                                             differences between the internal worker groups referred
                        (2002/C 202/10)                                      to in Question 2 principally consist of the fact that, in the
                                                                             case of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       Group A, ‘men on military service’,
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
(Supreme Court) of 22 May 2002, received at the Court                        1.    there is normally an obligation to ‘report for duty’
Registry on 14 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the                          or, in any event, if they should report voluntarily,
case of Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft der
Privatangestellten against Wirtschaftskammer Österreich on                  2.    reporting for duty is only permissible in so far as it
the following questions:                                                           is in the public interest, and
1.    Is the term ‘pay’ in Article 141 EC and in Article 1 of                3.    it is normally not possible to perform services under
      Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on                          an employment relationship governed by private
      the approximation of the laws of the Member States                           law — even another employment relationship,
      relating to the application of the principle of equal pay
      for men and women (OJ 1975 L 045, p. 19) to be                         whereas, in the case of Group B, ‘unpaid parental leave’,
      construed as meaning that it also encompasses statutory
      provisions of general application, such as Paragraph 8 of              1.    it is left to the individual worker in a particular
      the Bundesgesetz über die Sicherung des Arbeitsplatzes                       employment relationship alone to choose whether
      für zum Präsenz — oder Ausbildungsdienst einberufene                         she wishes to take unpaid parental leave to care for
      oder zum Zivildienst zugewiesene Arbeitnehmer (Federal                       her child and
      law on job security for workers called up for military or
      training service or assigned to alternative civilian service,          2.    whether, during that parental leave and in the time
      hereinafter ‘the APSG’), where, in the public interest,                      available to her after caring for her children, she can
      periods of service in the performance of public duties as                    also undertake work of a limited nature in a private
      defined therein, during which it is generally not possible                   employment relationship,
      to perform services of a private-employment nature, is to
      be taken into account for the purposes of claims under                 those differences constitute sufficient objective justifi-
      employment law calculated according to length of service               cation for the different treatment of those periods for the
      in a private-employment relationship?                                  purposes of claims based on length of service?
2.    Are Article 141 EC and Article 1 of Directive 75/117/
      EEC to be construed as meaning that,


               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/1

         Request for an Opinion submitted by the European Parliament under Article 300(6) of the EC Treaty
   (Opinion 1/04)
   (2004/C 118/01)
   A request for an Opinion under Article 300(6) of the EC Treaty was made on 21 April 2004 by the European Parliament, represent by R. Passos, H. Duintjer Tebbens and N. Lorenz, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The European Parliament requests the Court of Justice for a reply to the following questions:

               (a)

               Is the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) EC the appropriate legal basis for the Council Decision on the conclusion of the proposed agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record data by air carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection?

               (b)

               Must the abovementioned proposed agreement be regarded as being compatible with the right to protection of personal data, as enshrined in particular in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which the Community is required to observe in the same way as the Treaty?