title: Case T-217/01: Action brought on 11 September 2001 by Forum des Migrants de l'Union Européenne against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 317/34               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.11.2001
Action brought on 20 September 2001 by Calberson G.E.                     therefore entitled to hold the Commission liable, as principal
     against Commission of the European Communities                       or master, for the acts of those who have acted on its behalf.
                                                                          Furthermore, Article 9(3) of Regulation No 111/1999 (2) must
                                                                          be interpreted as meaning that the intervention agency is liable
                         (Case T-215/01)                                  for the additional costs incurred by the successful tenderer
                                                                          where those costs are due to a delay in unloading or in the
                         (2001/C 317/66)                                  making available of the goods by the intervention agency or at
                                                                          the storage location.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In the alternative, even if the Commission is not guarantor of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 the acts of intervening parties, the applicant submits that the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                conditions for a finding of non-contractual liability of the
European Communities on 20 September 2001 by Calberson                    Community are satisfied in the present case.
G.E., established in Paris, represented by Thierry Gallois,
lawyer.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 220, 20.8.1999, p. 3.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               (2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 of 18.1.1999, laying
                                                                              down general rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                              No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural products to
—     order the Commission to pay to the applicant by way of                  the Russian Federation (OJ L 14, 19.1.1999, p. 3).
      compensation:
      —     Euros 14 290 .61;
      —     USD 57 859 .56, together with legal interest with
            effect from the eighth day after each unpaid invoice
            of Calberson G.E.;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                              Action brought on 11 September 2001 by Forum des
                                                                          Migrants de l’Union Européenne against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                    (Case T-217/01)
The present dispute concerns the performance of lot No 4                                           (2001/C 317/67)
organised by Commission Regulation No 1815/1999 of
18 August 1999, relating to the supply of skimmed milk
powder to Russia (1). Under the terms of that transaction,                                    (Language of the case: French)
Alpine, the storage firm of the intervention agency, was to
load the goods on the applicant’s means of transport.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
According to the applicant, Alpine initially demanded payment             European Communities on 11 September 2001 by the Forum
of additional loading costs and the issue of guarantees for the           des Migrants de L’Union Européenne (the European Union
return of pallets. The Commission agreed that the applicant               Migrants Forum), established in Brussels, represented by
was right to refuse payment, whereupon the intervention                   Emmanuel Degrez, lawyer.
agency was asked to intervene with Alpine and to require it to
drop its claim. Alpine then took much longer than planned
when unloading and loading the applicant’s lorries. Those two             The applicant claims that the Court should:
difficulties led to a delay in loading the ship chartered by
Calberson, with demurrage arising for the loss of use of the              —     annul the decision notified to the applicant on 11 July
vessel both at the port of departure and port of destination.                   2001 by the Directorate General for Justice and Home
                                                                                Affairs of the Commission terminating the financial
                                                                                support from the Commission under Article A0-3040 of
The applicant alleges that the Commission has incurred both
                                                                                the Community budget on the basis of Article 1 of the
contractual and non-contractual liability.
                                                                                general conditions of the grant agreement for the financial
                                                                                year 2000;
As regards contractual liability, Calberson considers that it
follows from the principles generally accepted in the laws of             —     order that the costs and expenses of the case be paid by
all the Member States that the principal is guarantor of the acts               the Directorate General for Justice and Home Affairs of
of its agents or those acting on its behalf. The applicant is                   the Commission.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.11.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 317/35
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                      lenging the decision. The applicant also disputes the stipulation
                                                                          in the decision that other information and supporting docu-
                                                                          ments were necessary. According to the applicant it had
The applicant is a non-governmental organisation whose                    submitted all the necessary documents and, if the Commission
objects are to fight racism and to protect the interests of               required other material, it should have requested it from the
immigrants in the European Union. To that end the applicant               applicant.
received subsidies from the Commission for the year 2000, in
accordance with the agreement entered into by the two parties.
In the challenged decision the Council terminated that financial
aid because of financial irregularities established against the
applicant.
In support of its action the applicant relies on:                         Action brought on 24 September 2001 by Calberson G.E.
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
—     failure to observe the general conditions of the grant
      agreement of 24 May 2000;                                                                    (Case T-220/01)
—     failure to respect the rights of the defence in an adminis-
                                                                                (2001/C 317/69)
      trative case. According to the applicant the disputed
      decision was made without the applicant being heard and
      was not based on proper reasons;                                                        (Language of the case: French)
—     breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 24 September 2001 by Calberson
                                                                          G.E., a company established in Paris, represented by Thierry
                                                                          Gallois, lawyer.
Action brought on 21 September 2001 by Laboratoire                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Monique Remy against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                    —     order the Commission to pay to the applicant compen-
                                                                                sation equal to the amounts of the following invoices:
                          (Case T-218/01)
                                                                                —     BRU 0135 963 for DEM 82 991,96 — additional
                                                                                loading charges;
                          (2001/C 317/68)
                                                                                —     BRU 0135 098 for DEM 900 corresponding to fines
                    (Language of the case: French)                                    paid to the Polish authorities;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       —     BRU 0135 099 for DEM 6 960 corresponding to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                            fines paid to the Polish authorities;
European Communities on 21 September 2001 by Laboratoire
Monique Remy, established at Grasse (France), represented by                    —     BRU 0135 964 for DEM 16 050 — the cost of
Jean-Félix Pupel, lawyer.                                                             plastic sheeting charged by the store manager;
                                                                          —     order that interest at the legal rate be added to the
The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2001)1380                        compensation from the 8th day after each unpaid invoice;
of 2 July 2001 withdrawing the financial assistance granted
to the applicant by Commission Decision C(93)3185 of                      —     order that all the costs be paid by the Commission.
10 November 1993 concerning the grant of aid from the
EAGGF Guidance Section pursuant to Council Regulation
(EEC) No 4256/88 in the context of Project No 93.FR.06.027
entitled: ‘Pilot project to demonstrate exploitation of the Iris, a       Pleas in law and principal arguments
Mediterranean plant, for the luxury perfume industry and food
flavourings (France, Spain, Greece)’.                                     This case concerns the execution of Lots 5 and 7 of Regulation
                                                                          No 1799/1999 on the transport of beef from the intervention
                                                                          stock in Germany to Russia. Under the terms of that regulation,
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                      the applicant was to provide, at the departure points, services
                                                                          comprising handling and loading the means of transport. The
                                                                          applicant invoiced the intervention agency for those services
The applicant claims that the decision does not observe the               in compliance with the quotation which had been given to the
code of sound administrative conduct because it does not                  applicant by the intervention agency, which had itself received
contain any information concerning the possibilities of chal-             the quotation from the company managing the store.


title: Case T-225/03: Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Pat Fitzpatrick against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 239/12                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        4.10.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Pat Fitzpatrick against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/                                             (Case T-225/03)
03 (1).
                                                                                (2003/C 239/20)
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Pat Fitzpatrick,
                                                                              Inishmore, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Thomas Faherty                              Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             (Case T-224/03)
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                                                                                Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                            (2003/C 239/19)                                          Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                                                                                into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                                                                                hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                      (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                                                                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
                                                                                capacity application in respect of the MFV Shauan Ann;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                           ings.
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Thomas Faherty,
Kilronan, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,
Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
                                                                              03 (1).
—      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
       Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
       Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take                   (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
       into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
       hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
       vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
       under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
       capacity application for a proposed new RSW trawler
       vessel to replace the MFV Westward Isle;
                                                                              Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Ocean Trawlers
                                                                              Limited against the Commission of the European Com-
—      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
                                                                                munities
       ings.
                                                                                (Case T-226/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                           (2003/C 239/21)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
03 (1).
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Ocean Trawlers
                                                                              Limited, Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and
                                                                              A. Collins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.


title: Case C-59/02: Action brought on 25 February 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
20.4.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 97/7
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Action brought on 25 February 2002 by the Commission
                                                                            of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
                                                                                lic
—     Declare that, by restricting the concept of ‘collective
      redundancies’ to redundancies for structural, technologi-                                       (Case C-59/02)
      cal or cyclical reasons, and by failing to extend the
      concept to redundancies for any other reason not specific
      to the workforce itself, the Portuguese Republic has failed                                    (2002/C 97/14)
      to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1, 6 and 7 of
      Directive 98/59/EC; (1)
                                                                            An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
—     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 February
                                                                            2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            represented by Michel Nolin and Minas Konstantinidis, Legal
                                                                            Advisers.
                                                                            The Commission claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            —     declare that, by not adopting or, in any event, by failing
                                                                                to communicate to the Commission (all) the laws,
                                                                                regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
The Commission takes the view that the concept of collective                      comply with Council Directive 1999/86/EC (1) of 11 No-
redundancies in Portuguese law does not cover all the cases of                    vember 1999 adapting to technical progress Directive
collective redundancies envisaged by the directive. For exam-                     76/763/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the
ple, it does not cover redundancies declared by an employer                       Member States relating to passenger seats for wheeled
for reasons unrelated to the workforce where the undertaking                      agricultural or forestry tractors, the Hellenic Republic has
is wound up or liquidated, sold, the premises burnt down or                       failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of that
other cases of force majeur, or where the undertaking has                         directive;
ceased trading on the death of its owner. The current situation
not only undermines the protection of workers, it is also                   —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
manifestly contrary to the principle of legal certainty. Without
calling in question the constitutional provisions which guaran-
tee workers’ right to work, the Commission points out that in
any event that does not make good the inadequate transpo-                   Pleas in law and main arguments
sition of a directive whose purpose is to strengthen the
protection of workers in the event of collective redundancies
and to provide workers with certain guarantees as regards                   In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
observance of the rules and procedure for redundancies.                     directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
Thirdly, by relying on the case law and the rules of Portuguese             each Member State to which they are addressed.
law according to which the directive would not be applicable
to collective redundancies for reasons not specific to the
workforce, since such cases would be time-barred, the Portug-               Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
uese authorities have improperly restricted the scope of the                to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
directive. Finally, the Commission considers that to accept the             to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
argument that application of the rules laid down in the                     or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
directive is ‘not viable’ in those cases where termination of               Community.
the employment contract which under Portuguese law is
considered to limit rights of action, would amount to acknowl-
edging that a Member State may invoke provisions of domestic                It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
law to justify failure to fulfil its obligations under a Community          measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
directive, which is manifestly contrary to Community law.
                                                                            The Commission records that until now, despite the expiry on
                                                                            1 January 2001 of the period laid down, the Hellenic Republic
(1) Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation         has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
    of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundan-       ation of the directive at issue into Greek law.
    cies. OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.
                                                                            (1) OJ L 297, 18.11.1999, p. 22.


title: Case C-80/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d'Instance de Châteauroux by Judgment of 26 January 2001 in the case of SARL Michel v Recettes des Douanes

text:
7.4.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 108/11
The Appellant claims that:                                               —     it infringed Articles 190 and 215 of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                               Articles 253 and 288 EC), and the general legal principle
                                                                               of coherence in that it held that the argument that the
—     the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 Novem-                 Measure Challenged was unlawful for failure to state
      ber 2000 in case T-213/97 be annulled in so far as it                    reasons cannot be upheld and, additionally, it implied that
      applies to the Appellants;                                               the Council had complete freedom of action unfettered by
                                                                               the Basic Regulation.
—     the Council’s Decision not to adopt the proposal for a             (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997, p. 23.
      regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
      imports of unbleached (grey) cotton fabrics in the People’s
      Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and
      Turkey (COM (97) 160 final, of 21 April 1997) be
      annulled in so far as it applies to the Appellants;
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d’appello
—     the Appellants’ claim for compensation for the damage              di Milano by order of 29 January 2001 in the appeal
      in case T-213/97 be declared founded and the determi-              brought by Payroll Data Services (Italy) srl, ADP Europe
      nation of the amount of compensation referred back to                                    SA and ADP GSI SA
      the Court of First Instance;
                                                                                (Case C-79/01)
—     the Council be ordered to pay the Appellants’ costs both
      in the present appeal and also in case T-213/97.                                            (2001/C 108/16)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of 29 January 2001 by the
                                                                         Corte d’appello di Milano (Court of Appeal, Milan), which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 15 February 2001, for a
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Payroll Data
                                                                         Services (Italy) srl, ADP Europe SA and ADP GSI SA on the
                                                                         following question:
The Appellants submit that the Court of First Instance infringed         Do Articles 43 EC and 49 EC preclude Italian courts from
Community law in the following ways:                                     applying Article 1 of Law No 12 of 11 January 1979, as
                                                                         amended by Article 58(16) of Law No 144 of 17 May 1999,
                                                                         regulating the profession of employment consultant, to the
—     it infringed Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now Article 230         extent to which it prohibits, in absolute terms, external
      EC) as interpreted by the case law (and additionally, as           undertakings providing services relating to the preparation
      read in the light of Article 9.1, 6.9, 12.2 and 13 and of          and printing of pay slips from providing their services to
      the GATT 1994 Anti-dumping Agreement) and the                      undertakings having less than 250 employees?
      general legal principle of coherence, in that it held the
      Measure Challenged was not a reviewable act within the
      meaning of the said Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now
      Article 230 EC);
—     it infringed Article 19 of the EC Statute of the Court of          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-
      Justice and Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure of the            stance de Châteauroux by Judgment of 26 January 2001
      Court of First Instance in that it held that the Appellants            in the case of SARL Michel v Recettes des Douanes
      had submitted a new claim in breach of those dispositions;
                                                                                (Case C-80/01)
—     it infringed Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now Article 230
      EC) as interpreted by the case law (and additionally as                                     (2001/C 108/17)
      read in the light of Articles 9.1, 6.9, 12.2 and 13 of the
      GATT 1994 Anti-dumping Agreement) in that it held                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      that the mere expiry of the 15-month period provided               European Communities by judgment of 26 January 2001
      for in Article 6(9) of the Basic Regulation does not               by the Tribunal d’Instance de Châteauroux (District Court,
      constitute a decision by the Council which could be the            Châteauroux), which was received at the Court Registry on
      subject of an action for annulment on the basis of Article         16 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of SARL
      173 of the EC Treaty (now Article 230 EC); and                     Michel v Recettes des Douanes on the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- C 108/12                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.4.2001
Must Article 3(a) and (b) of the Treaty of Rome, the first recital          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
in the preamble to, and Article 3(2) of, Directive 92/12 of                 Grande Instance (Regional Court), Paris (31st Chamber)
25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products                   by judgment of that court of 19 February 2001 in the case
subject to excise duty (1), and the sixth and eighth recitals in            of Ministère Public against John Greenham and Léonard
the preamble to Directive 92/81 of 19 October 1992 on the                                                 Abel
harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral
oils (2) be interpreted as precluding the French Republic
from refusing to reimburse the domestic duty on petroleum                                            (Case C-95/01)
products (TIPP) paid by a trader in petroleum products
following the failure by one of his customers to make payment?
                                                                                (2001/C 108/19)
(1) Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general
    arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the
    holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    L 76, 23.03.1992, p. 1).                                                European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de
(2) Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmon-           Grande Instance (Regional Court), Paris (31st Chamber) of
    isation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992     19 February 2001, received at the Court Registry on 27 Febru-
    L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 12).                                              ary 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministère
                                                                            Public against John Greenham and Léonard Abel on the
                                                                            following question:
                                                                            Must Articles 28 and 30 of the Treaty be interpreted as
                                                                            prohibiting a Member State from preventing the free move-
                                                                            ment and marketing of a food supplement lawfully sold in
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Cour de                    another Member State?
cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber,
by judgment of that court of 13 February 2001 in the case
of SARL, Borie Manoux v Directeur de l’Institut national
                de la propriété industrielle (INPI)
                            (Case C-81/01)
                           (2001/C 108/18)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Action brought on 27 February 2001 by the Commission
European Communities by a judgment of the French Cour de                    of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
cassation (Court of Cassation), Commercial, Financial and                                           of Luxembourg
Economic Chamber, of 13 February 2001, received at the
Court Registry on 16 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of SARL Borie Manoux v Directeur de l’Institut
                                                                                (Case C-97/01)
national de la propriété industrielle (INPI) on the following
question:
                                                                                (2001/C 108/20)
Must Article 40 of Regulation No 2392/89 (1) be interpreted
as prohibiting the registration as a trade mark, for the products
covered by the regulation, of a geographical reference the use              An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
of which is not provided for by Article 11, even where the                  brought before the Court of Justice on 27 February 2001 by
registration of such a trade mark is not likely to mislead the              the Commission of the European Communities, represented
consumer as to the provenance of the wine and does not                      by S. Rating and F. Siredey-Garnier, acting as Agents, with an
give rise to any confusion with a registered geographical                   address for service in Luxembourg.
designation, in so far as such registration might suggest that
the geographical reference in question, which relates to the
region where that wine is actually produced but which covers                The applicant claims that the Court should:
other designations of origin, is protected?
                                                                            —    declare that, by failing to ensure the transposition in
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of 24 July 1989 laying                   practice of Article 4d of Directive 90/388/EEC(1), as
    down general rules for the description and presentation of wines             amended by Directive 96/19/EC (2), the Grand Duchy of
    and grape musts (OJ L 232, 9.8.1989, p. 13).                                 Luxembourg has failed to comply with its obligations;
                                                                            —    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.


title: Case C-559/08 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 September 2010 — Deepak Rajani (Dear!Net Online) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Artoz-Papier AG (Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark ATOZ — Opposition by the proprietor of the international word mark ARTOZ — Refusal of registration)

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/6

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 September 2010 — Deepak Rajani (Dear!Net Online) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Artoz-Papier AG
   (Case C-559/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark ATOZ - Opposition by the proprietor of the international word mark ARTOZ - Refusal of registration)
   2011/C 80/10
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Deepak Rajani (represented by: A. Kockläuner, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent), Artoz-Papier AG

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 26 November 2008 in Case T-100/06 Rajani v OHIM — Artoz-Papier (ATOZ), by which that Court dismissed an action brought by the applicant for the word mark ATOZ, for services in Classes 35 and 41, against Decision R 1126/2004-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 11 January 2006 dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing registration of that mark in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the international word mark ‘ARTOZ’ for services in Classes 35 and 41

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Rajani shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 04.04.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 November 2002 in Case C-333/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tarkastuslautakunta): Eila Päivikki Maaheimo (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Family benefits — Home child-care allowance — Residence condition for children)

text:
C 323/16                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.12.2002
            directive in relation to group water supplies, Ireland has                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
            failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 7(6), 18 and
            19 of that directive;
2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.                                                                  (Sixth Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2002.
                                                                                of 7 November 2002
                                                                              in Case C-333/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                the Tarkastuslautakunta): Eila Päivikki Maaheimo ( 1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                              (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Family benefits — Home
                        of 5 November 2002
                                                                                child-care allowance — Residence condition for children)
in Case C-325/00: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v Federal Republic of Germany (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/19)
(Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent
               effect — Label of origin and quality)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Finnish)
                            (2002/C 323/18)
                    (Language of the case: German)                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-325/00, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: J. C. Schieferer and C. Schmidt) v Federal Republic of               In Case C-333/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Germany (Agent: W.-D. Plessing, acting as Agent, assisted by                  EC by the Tarkastuslautakunta (Finland) for a preliminary
M. Loschelder): Application for a declaration that by awarding                ruling in the proceedings pending before that court by Eila
the quality label ‘Markenqualität aus deutschen Landen’ (quality              Päivikki Maaheimo, on the interpretation of Articles 4(1)(h),
label for produce made in Germany) to finished products of a                  10(a), 73 and 75 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
certain quality produced in Germany, the Federal Republic of                  14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of              employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC), the                      of their families moving within the Community, as amended
Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                      and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
J.-P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers),                    2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), the Court (Sixth
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris,                  Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues,                Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,
Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has              V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and J. N. Cunha
given a judgment on 5 November 2002, in which it:                             Rodrigues, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
                                                                              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                              7 November 2002, in which it has ruled:
1.    Declares that, by awarding the quality label ‘Marenqualität aus
      deutschen Landen’ (quality label for produce made in Germany)
      to finished products of a certain quality made in Germany, the
      Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations        1.    A benefit such as the home child-care allowance provided for by
      under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                      the Laki lasten kotihoidon ja yksityisen hoidon tuesta (Law
      Article 28 EC);                                                               No 1128/96 on home child-care allowance and private child-
                                                                                care allowance) is a family benefit within the meaning of
2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.                      Article 4(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
                                                                                14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
                                                                                employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of
( 1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.                                                         their families moving within the Community, as amended and
                                                                                updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December
                                                                                1996.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.12.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 323/17
2.    On a proper construction of Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/                directive does not depend on the main purpose of those contracts
      71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, if the                   and is to be made in accordance with the unequivocal test laid
      grant of a benefit such as the home child-care allowance in the              down by Article 10 of that directive.
      main proceedings depends on the child’s actual residence in the
      territory of the competent Member State, that condition must           2.    In the award of a contract with a single object but composed of
      be held to be satisfied where the child resides in the territory of          several services, the classification of those services in Annexes I A
      another Member State.                                                        and I B to Directive 92/50, far from depriving it of its
                                                                                effectiveness, is in accordance with the system laid down by the
                                                                                directive. When, following the classification thus made by
( 1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                                       reference to the nomenclature of the United Nations Common
                                                                                Product Classification, the value of the services falling within
                                                                                Annex I B exceeds the value of the services falling within
                                                                                Annex I A, there is no obligation on the part of the contracting
                                                                                authority to separate from the contract in question the services
                                                                                referred to in Annex I B and to award separate contracts in
                                                                                respect of them.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      3.    It is for the national court to determine the regime applicable to
                                                                                the contract forming the object of the procedure at issue in the
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                         main proceedings on the basis of Article 10 of Directive 92/
                                                                                50, in particular by verifying that the services which make up
                                                                                that contract and the reference numbers of the nomenclature of
                       of 14 November 2002                                         the United Nations Common Product Classification correspond.
                                                                                In any case, Category 20 of Annex I B to Directive 92/50
in Case C-411/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                               cannot be interpreted as also including land transport services
from the Bundesvergabeamt): Felix Swoboda GmbH v                                   in themselves, as they are explicitly covered by Category 2 of
                Österreichische Nationalbank (1),                                  Annex I A to the Directive.
(Public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Scope                      (1 ) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
ratione materiae — Moving offices of a central bank —
Contract relating to both services listed in Annex I A to
Directive 92/50 and services listed in Annex I B to that
directive — Predominance in value terms of services listed in
                              Annex I B)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (2002/C 323/20)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                    (Language of the case: German)                                                   of 14 November 2002
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       in Case C-435/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                    in the European Court Reports)                           the Diikitiko Protodikio Rodou ): Geha Naftiliaki EPE,
                                                                             Total Scope NE, Stavros Georgiou, Charalambis Bros
                                                                             OE, Anastasios Charalambis, Nikolaos Sarlis, Dimitrios
                                                                             Kattidenios, Antonios Charalambis, Vasilios Dimitrako-
In Case C-411/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   poulos v NPDD Limeniko Tamio Dodekanisou, Elliniko
EC by the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) for a preliminary ruling                                               Dimosio (1)
in the proceedings pending before that court between Felix
Swoboda GmbH and Österreichische Nationalbank, on the                        (Transport — Maritime transport — Freedom to provide
interpretation of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June                     services — Restriction — National legislation applicable to
1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the                      all persons providing services, irrespective of their national-
award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1),                     ity, that distinguishes between domestic or intra-Community
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, Presi-                              transport and transport to third countries)
dent of the Chamber, C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo,                                             (2002/C 323/21)
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 14 November 2002, in which it                                        (Language of the case: Greek)
has ruled:
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
1.    The determination of the regime applicable to public service                                in the European Court Reports)
      contracts composed partly of services falling within Annex I A
      to Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to
      the coordination of procedures for the award of public service         In Case C-435/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      contracts and partly of services falling within Annex I B to the       EC by the Diikitiko Protodikio Rodou (Greece) for a prelimi-


title: Case C-112/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen by order of that Court of 14 March 2002 in the case of Kohlpharma GmbH against Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 156/4                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     29.6.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwal-                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
tungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen by order
of that Court of 14 March 2002 in the case of Kohlpharma
                                                                        —     Declare that, by allowing the approval of a project in the
         GmbH against Federal Republic of Germany
                                                                              tourist sector which included construction of housing,
                                                                              hotels and golf clubs in the Ponta do Abano area, without
                         (Case C-112/02)                                      an appropriate assessment of its environmental impact,
                                                                              the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under Article 2(1) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC(1) of
                         (2002/C 156/07)                                      27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
                                                                              public and private projects on the environment;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  —     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
European Communities by order of the Oberverwaltungs-
gericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Higher Administrat-
ive Court of North Rhine-Westphalia) of 14 March 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 27 March 2002, for a                  Pleas in law and main arguments
preliminary ruling in the case of Kohlpharma GmbH against
Federal Republic of Germany on the following question:
Is it justified under Article 30 EC or other Community law for          The Commission takes the view that the correct transposition
the competent German authority to obstruct the parallel                 of Article 2(1) and Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337/EEC cannot
import of a medicinal product by refusing authorisation under           be relied upon by the Portuguese Republic in order to exempt
the simplified procedure, contrary to Article 28 EC, although           from the assessment obligation provided for in Article 2(1) a
on the one hand it accepts that the medicinal product to be             specific project which, as in the case of the project relating to
imported (Jumex), authorised for Chiese Farmaceutici S.p.A. in          work carried out in the area of Ponta do Abano, although
Italy, is as regards the medically active ingredient (Selegilinhy-      falling within the scope of Annex II to that directive, is likely
drochloride) identical to the medicinal product (Movergan)              to have a significant impact on the environment by virtue of
produced by the German authorisation holder Orion Pharma                their nature, size or location.
GmbH, the medically active ingredient of which is delivered to
the Italian firm by the manufacturer, located in Hungary, on
the basis of a licensing agreement but to the German firm
solely on the basis of a supply agreement with Orion Corp.              (1) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.
Finland, either directly or via Finland, if on the other hand the
German authority does not give, as regards the medically
active ingredient or the excipients, which the authorities
consider to differ both qualitatively and quantitatively in the
present case, reasons to show that the two medicinal products
are not identical, and in particular are not manufactured
according to the same formulation and using the same active
ingredient or that they have the same therapeutic effects?
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State
                                                                        by judgment of that Court of 27 March 2002 in the case
                                                                        of Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee,
                                                                        also acting on behalf of Nederlandse Vereniging tot
                                                                        Bescherming van Vogels against Staatssecretaris van Land-
                                                                                bouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij
Action brought on 27 March 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                                              (Case C-127/02)
                             Republic
                                                                                (2002/C 156/09)
                         (Case C-117/02)
                         (2002/C 156/08)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Raad van State
                                                                        (Council of State) of 27 March 2002, received at the Court
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before            Registry on 8 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 March            of Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee, also
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     acting on behalf of Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming
represented by António Caeiros, acting as Agent, with an               van Vogels against Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuur-
address for service in Luxembourg.                                      beheer en Visserij on the following questions:


7.8.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 226/27
Action brought on 15 June 1999 by the Commission of                          Removal from the register of Case C-10/99 (1)
 the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (1999/C 226/48)
                        (Case C-230/99)
                                                                      By order of 29 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                        (1999/C 226/46)                               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                      the register of Case C-10/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
An action against the French Republic was brought before the          from the Amtsgericht München): Peter Feiler v Karlsruher
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 June               Lebensversicherungs-AG.
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser, and Olivier
Couvert-Castéra, a national civil servant on secondment to the        (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
Legal Service, acting as Agent with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Declare that, by adopting the order of 9 November 1994                     Removal from the register of Case C-63/98 (1)
    ‘concerning rubber material and rubber articles in contact
    with foodstuffs, food products and beverages for consump-
    tion’, without expressly recognising the technical rules                                  (1999/C 226/49)
    standards and manufacturing processes which are lawfully
    followed in the other Member States, and the findings             By order of 4 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
    from the related checks and tests carried out by an               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
    inspection and supervisory body or a laboratory officially        the register of Case C-63/98: Commission of the European
    recognised in another Member State, the French Republic           Communities v Netherlands.
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 (ex
    Article 30) of the EC Treaty;
                                                                      (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
— Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The effect of the French rules referred to in the application is
to prevent the marketing in France of the products concerned                 Removal from the register of Case C-311/98 (1)
which, albeit lawfully manufactured or marketed in another
Member State, do not comply with the French legislation;
those rules therefore constitute a restriction on intra-                                      (1999/C 226/50)
Community trace. The Commission does not deny that the
provisions of the above order are designed to meet public             By order of 21 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
health requirements, but it questions whether they are pro-           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
portionate in relation to the objective pursued in the absence        the register of Case C-311/98: Commission of the European
of any provision for the mutual recognition of products which         Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
ensure an equivalent lever of protection to that sought under
the French legislation.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-292/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 226/47)                                      Removal from the register of Case C-66/98 (1)
By order of 19 April 1999 the President of the Fourth Chamber                                 (1999/C 226/51)
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-292/98:               By order of 26 May 1999 the President of the Third Chamber
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.            of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
                                                                      ordered the removal from the register of Case C-66/98:
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.                                            Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1999.


title: NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS

text:
C 347/ 12       | EN |           Official Journal of the European Communities                             18 . 11 . 97
                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                     NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS
                                                  (97/C 347/08 )
          The Court of Justice of the European Communities has advertised in the Official Journal of the
          European Communities C 347 A of 18 November 1997 the following open competitions :
          Danish edition
          CJ/LA/25 (lawyer-linguists of Danish mother-tongue)
          German edition
          CJ/LA/24 (lawyer-linguists of German mother-tongue)
          Italian edition
          CJ/LA/ 26 (lawyer-linguists of Italian mother-tongue).
          To obtain a copy of the Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of
          Justice of the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.


title: Case T-333/09: Action brought on 20 August 2009 — Poland v Commission

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/71

         Action brought on 20 August 2009 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-333/09)
   2009/C 267/130
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Claimant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz, Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare invalid Annex I to Commission Decision 2009/444/EC of 10 June 2009 (notified under document number C(2009) 4375) allocating the amounts resulting from the modulation provided for in Articles 7 and 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 to the Member States for the years 2009 to 2012, (1) in so far as it determines, for 2012, the allocation to the Member States of the amounts resulting from the modulation provided for in accordance with Article 9(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its claim that Commission Decision 2009/444/EC should be declared partially invalid, the claimant makes the following submissions.
   First, the claimant alleges an infringement of the principle of the hierarchy of legal norms by reason of the adoption of measures which are contrary to Article 9(2) of Regulation No 73/2009. (2) The claimant submits in this regard that the contested decision divides the amounts provided for the whole of the period 2009-2012 exclusively among the States of the Community of Fifteen, whereas Article 9(2) of Regulation No 73/2009 provides that, from 2012, those States will not be the only Member States to be affected by that modulation. In connection with the foregoing, in the claimant’s view, the new Member States will also have to be subject to that mechanism with regard to 2012.
   Second, the claimant alleges that there has been an infringement of, first, the principle that funds should be allocated from the modulation in accordance with objective criteria, which principle follows from recital 14 in the preamble to Regulation No 73/2009 and from Article 9(2) thereof and, second, the principle of solidarity.
   Third, the claimant alleges that the principle of non-discrimination has been infringed, in so far as, in its view, the criteria applied by the Commission for the allocation of funds from the modulation for 2012 (such as the date of accession of a particular Member State to the European Union and the level of contributions of a given Member State to the allocation of funds from the modulation), which led to the exclusion of the Republic of Poland and other new Member States from allocations under those funds, are not objective and do not ensure a proportional distribution of burdens and benefits resulting from the modulation mechanism.
   Fourth, the claimant submits that the contested decision breaches Article 253 EC in that the grounds for excluding the new Member States from the distribution for 2012 with regard to the funds allocated from the modulation, which have to be allocated in accordance with objective criteria among all of the Member States which apply the modulation mechanism, were not indicated by the Commission in the content of the contested decision, in particular in its preamble, or in the course of the preparatory work on the contested decision.
   Fifth, the claimant alleges that the defendant failed to comply with an essential procedural requirement by reason of the fact that it adopted the contested decision in a manner at variance with the procedural rules governing the Management Committee for Direct Payment Matters and with Article 3 of Council Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community. (3) The claimant contends that the Commission failed to provide the representative of the Republic of Poland with a draft version of the contested decision in Polish, despite being requested to do so, a failure which made it difficult for the claimant to assess that draft version and to carry out the necessary consultations.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 148 of 11.06.2009, p. 29.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30 of 31.01.2009, p. 16).

      (3)  OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958, p. 59.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätt by order of that court of 23 July 1997 in the case brought by Kjell Karlsson and Others against Jordbruksverket (Case C-292/97)

text:
C 295/24               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27 . 9 . 97
     may be accepted that the act by which the President                   who — for reasons outside their control — have not
     appoints a doctor to represent the applicant on the                   delivered milk throughout the necessary qualification
     Committee is itself an administrative act, the acts                   period for the award of quota (1 March 1994 to
     which precede it or directly follow from it must                      1 January 1995 ) are refused a quota ?
     involve full consultation of the other party.
     Consequently, the Commission was under an
     obligation to inform the applicant of its decision to           (') OJ L 405 , 31 . 12 . 1992, p . 40.
     refer the matter to the President of the Court of
     Justice. Once that appointment had taken place, the
     Commission was also obliged to communicate a copy
     of the appointment order made by the President of the
     Court of Justice.
— Infringement of the first paragraph of Article 9 of                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional
     Annex II to the Staff Regulations of Officials: the             Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
     Court of First Instance wrongly considered that the             17 June 1997, in the case of The Queen against
     applicant was in a position to exercise the rights              ( 1 ) Secretary of State for the Environment (2 ) Minister of
     conferred on her by that provision.                             Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, ex parte: ( 1 ) H. A.
                                                                     Standley and Others (2 ) D. G. D. Metson and Others,
                                                                                Intervener: National Farmers ' Union
                                                                                ( Case C-293/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 295/42 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsratt
by order of that court of 23 July 1997 in the case brought
    by Kjell Karlsson and Others against Jordbruksverket
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                         (Case C-292/97)                             European Communities by an order of the Divisional
                          ( 97/C 295/41 )                            Court, Queen's Bench Division, of 17 June 1997, which
                                                                     was received at the Court Registry on 11 August 1997, for
                                                                     a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               ( 1 ) Secretary of State for the Environment ( 2 ) Minister of
European Communities by order of the Regeringsratt                   Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, ex parte: ( 1 ) H. A.
(Supreme Administrative Court) of 23 July 1997, which                Standley and Others ( 2 ) D. G. D. Metson and Others,
was received at the Court Registry on 8 August 1997, for             Intervener: National Farmers' Union, on the following
a preliminary ruling in the case brought by Kjell Karlsson           questions:
and Others against Jordbruksverket on the following
questions:
                                                                      1 . Does Council Directive 91 /676/EEC (*) of 12 December
Do Council Regulation ( EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December                      1991 concerning the protection of waters against
1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk                  pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
products sector ('), Articles 5 and 40 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty              ('the Nitrates Directive') require Member States, in
and the fundamental Community law principle of equal                       accordance, in particular, with Articles 2 (j ) and 3 ( 1 )
treatment permit national provisions of a State which                      and Annex I thereof, to identify surface freshwaters as
acceded to the Union on 1 January 1995 under which:                        'waters affected by pollution', and then to designate as
                                                                           vulnerable zones in accordance with Article 3 (2 )
                                                                           thereof all known areas of land which drain into such
1 . for producers who have not altered their production,                   waters and which contribute to pollution:
      average deliveries in 1991 , 1992 and 1993 are adopted
      as the basis for the award of a milk quota,
                                                                            (i)  where those waters contain a concentration of
2. producers who have commenced or increased                                     nitrates in excess of 50 mg/1 ( being the
      production of milk between 1 January 1991 and                              concentration of nitrates laid down by Annex I to
      31 December 1994 must accept a reduction in milk                           the Nitrates Directive, by reference to Directive
      quota, unlike milk producers whose production                              75/440/EEC (2) and the Member State is satisfied
      circumstances have not altered in that period and                          that the discharge of nitrogen compounds
      producers of ecologically produced milk, and that                          from agricultural sources makes a 'significant
                                                                                contribution' to this overall concentration of
      reduction is determined differently for producers who
      have commenced production than for those who have                          nitrates and, if so, is a Member State entitled to
                                                                                be so satisfied if it has reason to believe that the
      increased production,
                                                                                contribution to this overall concentration of
                                                                                nitrates, of nitrogen compounds discharged from
 3 . producers who delivered milk before the State's                             agricultural sources, is greater than de minimis or
      accession to the Community's milk quota system but                         some other amount or degree of contribution,


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 1999 in Case T-9/99 R: HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co KG and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Payment of fine - Proceedings for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Stay of enforcement)

text:
C 299/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.10.1999
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                             (Germany), HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungs-
                           INSTANCE                                      gesellschaft mbH, Verwaltungsgesellschaft, established at
                                                                         Rosenheim, Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik Vertriebsgesellschaft
                         of 21 July 1999                                 mbH, established at Rosenheim, Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik
                                                                         Gesellschaft mbH, established at Hohenberg (Austria), and
                                                                         Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik GmbH, established at Sondershau-
in Case T-191/98 R: DSR-Senator Lines GmbH v Com-                        sen (Germany), represented by Peter Krömer and Friedrich
           mission of the European Communities                           Nusterer, Rechtsanwälte, St Pölten, with an address for service
                                                                         in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue,
(Competition — Payment of a fine — Bank guarantee —                      v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Eric
Proceedings for interim relief — Suspension of operation of              Gippini Fournier and Walter Mölls) — application for suspen-
               a measure — Urgency — None)                               sion of operation or a stay of enforcement of Articles 3(d) and
                                                                         4 of Commission Decision 1999/60/EC of 21 October 1998
                        (1999/C 299/32)                                  relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty
                                                                         (Case No IV/35.691/E-4 — Pre-Insulated Pipe Cartel) (OJ 1999
                                                                         L 24, p. 1), as rectified by a decision of 6 November 1998,
                  (Language of the case: English)                        inasmuch as those measures impose on the applicants a fine
                                                                         payable within three months of notification of that decision
                                                                         — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order
In Case T-191/98 R: DSR-Senator Lines GmbH, established in
                                                                         on 9 July 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
Bremen (Germany), represented by Denis Waelbroeck, of the
Brussels Bar, Ute Zinsmeister, Rechtsanwältin, Düsseldorf,
and John Pheasant, Nicholas Bromfield and Matthew Levitt,                1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, supported by                 2. The costs are reserved.
Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: Wolf-Dieter Plessing
and Claus-Dieter Quassowski), v Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Richard Lyal) — application for suspen-
sion of the operation of Commission Decision 1999/243/EC
of 16 September 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.134
— Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement) (OJ 1999 L 95,
p. 1), in so far as, in Articles 8 and 10, it imposes a fine of
EUR 13 750 000 on the applicant — the President of the                   ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Court of First Instance made an order on 21 July 1999, the                                          INSTANCE
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                of 30 June 1999
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2. The costs are reserved.                                               in Case T-13/99 R: Pfizer Animal Health v Council of the
                                                                                European Union
                                                                         (Proceedings for interim relief — Suspension of operation of
                                                                         Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 — Withdrawal of virginiamy-
                                                                         cin from the list of authorised additives — Directive
                                                                               70/524/EEC — Urgency — Balancing of interests)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                           INSTANCE
                                                                                (1999/C 299/34)
                          of 9 July 1999
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
in Case T-9/99 R: HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik
Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co KG and Others v
        Commission of the European Communities                           In Case T-13/99 R: Pfizer Animal Health SA/NV, established in
                                                                         Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium), represented by Ian S. Forrester
(Competition — Payment of fine — Proceedings for interim                 QC, Elisabethann Wright, Barrister, and Mark Powell, Solicitor,
measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Stay                   with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                         of enforcement)                                 Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, supported by Asociación Nacional
                                                                         de Productores de Ganado Porcino and Asociación Española
                                                                         de Criadores de Vacuno de Carne, established in Madrid and
                        (1999/C 299/33)                                  Barcelona (Spain), represented by Jaime Folguera Crespo and
                                                                         Alfonso Gutiérrez Hernández, of the Madrid Bar, and by
                                                                         José Massaguer Fuentes and Edurne Navarro Varona, of the
                  (Language of the case: German)                         Barcelona Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                         the Chambers of Messrs Bonn & Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix,
In Case T-9/99 R: HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Beteili-              Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa) and
gungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, established at Rosenheim                 Fédération Européenne des Fabricants d’Adjuvants pour la


title: Case T-349/06: Action brought on 4 December 2006 — Germany v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/20

         Action brought on 4 December 2006 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-349/06)
   (2007/C 20/29)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, C. Schulze-Bahr and C. von Donat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2006) 4194 final of 25 September 2006 reducing the financial assistance from the ERDF granted by Commission Decision No C(95) 1736 of 27 July 1995 for the Operational Programme RESIDER North Rhine-Westphalia (ERDF No 49.02.10.036/ARINCO No 94.DE.16.051);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the contested decision the Commission reduced the amount of financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for the RESIDER-North Rhine-Westphalia Programme.
   In support of its action the applicant claims infringement of Article 24 of Regulation 4253/88 (1) since the requirements for a reduction are not met. In that context it claims, in particular, that the divergences from the indicative financing plan do not constitute a significant change to the programme.
   Even if there were a significant change to the programme, the applicant submits that the Commission gave prior consent in the form of its 'Guidelines for the financial closure of operational measures (1994 to 1999) of the Structural Funds' (SEC (1999) 1316).
   Assuming that the requirements for a reduction are met, the applicant claims that the defendant did not make use of its discretionary power in relation to the specific programme. In the applicant's view the Commission should have weighed up whether a reduction of the ERDF assistance was proportionate.
   Finally, the contested decision infringes the principle of sound administration in that it required the applicant to bring a new action against the decision, against which an action was already pending.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ L 374 of 31.12.1988, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2000 in Case C-283/98 P: Mo och Domsjö AB v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Determination of the amount — Statement of reasons — Power of unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
C 45/2                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.2.2001
with an address for service in Brussels at the Chambers of               Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
Cuatrecasas, Avenue d’Auderghem, 78, 1040 Brussels —                     D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo,
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance               Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
of the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended                     on 16 November 2000 in which it:
Composition) of 14 May 1998 in Case T-348/94 Enso
Española v Commission [1998] ECR 11-1875, seeking to have               1.    Dismisses the appeal;
that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
being Commission of the European Communities, represented                2.    Orders Mo och Domsjö AB to pay the costs.
by R. Lyal and E. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents — the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President
                                                                         (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward,
P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November
2000 in which it:
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2.    Orders Enso Española SA to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
                                                                                of 16 November 2000
                                                                         in Case C-286/98 P: Stora Kopparbergs BergsIags AB v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                         (Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty
                                                                         (now Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Statement of reasons —
                                                                                Liability for the infringement)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (2001/C 45/04)
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
                     of 16 November 2000
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in Case C-283/98 P: Mo och Domsjö AB v Commission of                                         in the European Court Reports)
                the European Communities (1)
                                                                         In Case C-286/98 P, Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB, estab-
(Appeal Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now                lished in Falun (Sweden), represented by A. Riesenkampff and
Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Determination of the amount                  S. Lehr, Rechtsanwälte, Frankfurt am Main, with an address for
 — Statement of reasons — Power of unlimited jurisdiction)               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of R. Faltz, 6 Rue
                                                                         Heinrich Heine — appeal against the judgment of the Court of
                                                                         First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber,
                         (2001/C 45/03)                                  Extended Composition) of 14 May 1998 in Case T-354/94
                                                                         Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags v Commission [1998] ECR
                                                                         II-2111, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
                  (Language of the Case: English)                        party to the proceedings being Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by J. Currall and R. Lyal, of its Legal
                                                                         Service, acting as Agents — the Court (Fifth Chamber)
In Case C-283/98 P, Mo och Domsjö AB, established at                     composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,
Örnsköldsvik, Sweden, represented by A. Woodgate and                    M. Wathelet (Rapporteur); D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and
M. Smith, Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg          L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,
at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias                Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November 2000 in
Hardt — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First                which it:
Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber,
Extended Composition) of 14 May 1998 in Case T-352/94 Mo                 1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 May
och Domsjö v Commission [1998] ECR II-1989, seeking to                         1998 in Case T-354/94 Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags v
have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings               Commission in so far as it attributes to Stora Kopparbergs
being Commission of the European Communities, represented                      Bergslags AB responsibility for the infringements committed by
by R. Lyal, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, assisted by                 Feldmühle and Papeteries Beghin-Corbehem prior to September
J. Flynn — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La                       1990;