title: Case C-500/99 P: Appeal brought on 22 December 1999 by Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. arl, established at St Lazzaro di Savena, against the judgment delivered on 12 October 1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-216/96 between Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. arl and Commission of the European Communities

text:
18.3.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 79/9
     obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC          Appeal brought on 22 December 1999 by Conserve Italia
     and Articles 2 and 3 of the aforementioned decisions; and         Soc. Coop. arl, established at St Lazzaro di Savena, against
                                                                       the judgment delivered on 12 October 1999 by the Third
— Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities in Case T-216/96 between Conserve Italia
                                                                       Soc. Coop. arl and Commission of the European Com-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     munities
Pursuant to Article 249 EC, the 1989 and 1998 decisions are                                    (Case C-500/99 P)
binding in every respect upon the Member State to which they
were addressed, in this case the Kingdom of Spain, by virtue
                                                                                (2000/C 79/17)
of their having been notified on 5 March 1990 and 29 October
1998 respectively.
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 October 1999
On 28 December 1998 the Kingdom of Spain brought an                    by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
action for annulment under Article 173 of the EC Treaty                European Communities in Case T-216/96 between Conserve
(230 EC). That action brought before the Court against the             Italia Soc. Coop. arl and Commission of the European
1998 decision under Case Number C-480/98 has no suspen-                Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
sory effect (Article 242 EC).                                          European Communities on 22 December 1999 by Conserve
                                                                       Italia Soc. Coop. arl, formerly known as Massalombarda
                                                                       Colombani SpA, represented by Marina Averani and Andrea
The Commission considers that the Kingdom of Spain has                 Pisaneschi, of the Siena Bar, Paolo De Caterini, of the Rome
failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of         Bar, and Stefano Zunarelli, of the Bologna Bar, with an address
Article 249 EC and under Articles 2 and 3 of the 1989 and              for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Turk,
1998 decisions, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary         13B Avenue Guillaume, Luxembourg.
to recover the aid. Moreover, even supposing that the measures
adopted to date by the Kingdom of Spain were to be deemed
sufficient to comply with Article 2 of the 1989 and 1998               The appellant claims that the Court should:
decisions, such measures were not adopted within the
two-month period following notification, so that the Kingdom
                                                                       — set aside or vary the contested judgment;
of Spain has nonetheless failed to fulfil its obligation under
Article 3 of each decision.
                                                                       — accordingly, annul Commission Decision C (96) 2760;
In order to comply with the 1989 decision, the Governments
of the Basque Country, Cantabria and Andalusia should have             — order the respondent to pay the costs.
sought the repayment of the aid by the actual beneficiaries,
namely Indosa, Cunosa, Gursa and Migsa, either directly or
through the intermediary companies Ficodesa, Gemacasa and
Damna, through which the aid had been channelled. However,             Pleas and main arguments
up to the initiation of these proceedings, the aforementioned
regional governments have at best done no more than ask for            1. According to the Court of First Instance, the irregularities
the return of the aid from the intermediary companies, which                relating to the project stem from the fact that it should be
have no assets of their own, so that the requests for repayment             regarded as having started when the contracts for machin-
have met with no success.                                                   ery were concluded — albeit subject to conditions —
                                                                            rather than when payment is made, invoices issued or even
                                                                            when they are actually performed.
So far as concerns the 1998 decision, the TSS and the Hacienda
Foral de Vizcaya account, together with the remaining public
creditors of Indosa, for 82.65 % of the amount of admitted                  That conclusion has no support in law but appears to be
debts and have therefore a large majority in the Indosa’s                   in conflict with the applicable legislation.
Committee of Inspection. However, the TSS has not adopted
any of the measures open to it, such as requesting the courts          2. In the appellant’s view, the Court of First Instance was
to call a creditors’ meeting or dismiss the receivers. In any               wrong to hold that the first subparagraph of Article 15(2)
event, the fact that it was not possible to reach an agreement              Regulation 4253/88 did not apply to the instant case,
among the creditors as a result of not being able to find a                 since all the expenditure was incurred during the six
buyer interested in acquiring the assets does not make it                   months preceding the beginning of the action.
‘absolutely impossible’ to comply with the 1998 decision,
since it would still be possible to wind up Indosa.
                                                                       3. The infringements complained of constituted only 28 % of
                                                                            the amount of the investment. In such circumstances, the
(1) OJ 1991 L 5, p. 18.                                                     legislation should possibly have provided for the reduction
                                                                            of the contribution rather than its withdrawal. The appel-
                                                                            lant is of the view that the legislation in force does not
                                                                            allow for the contribution to be withdrawn totally.
 ---pagebreak--- C 79/10                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.3.2000
4. The contested judgment is also vitiated by a breach of             Action brought on 22 December 1999 by the Commission
    Community law by the Court of First Instance inasmuch             of the European Communities against the French Republic
    as it misapplied the principle of proportionality, misasses-
    sed the Commission’s power of discretionary power and
                                                                                (Case C-502/99)
    broke with precedent.
                                                                                (2000/C 79/19)
                                                                      An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                      Court of Justice on 22 December 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities, represented by Christopher Van
                                                                      der Hauwaert, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                      Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Action brought on 22 December 1999 by the Commission                  Kirchberg.
of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                      The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                      the Court should:
                         (Case C-501/99)
                                                                      — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                           time-limit the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
                          (2000/C 79/18)                                   visions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                           97/61/EC of 20 October 1997 amending the Annex to
                                                                           Directive 91/492/EEC laying down the health conditions
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                           for the production and placing on the market of live
Court of Justice on 22 December 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                           bivalve molluscs (1), the French Republic has failed to
the European Communities, represented by Christopher Van
                                                                           comply with its obligations under the Treaty;
der Hauwaert, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,               — order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Kirchberg.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed             in Case C-495/99 (2); the period prescribed by Article 2 of
    time-limit the laws, regulations and administrative pro-          Directive 97/61/EC expired on 1 July 1998.
    visions necessary to comply with Council Directive
    95/69/EC laying down the conditions and arrangements
    for approving and registering certain establishments and          (1) OJ L 295 of 29.10.1997, p. 35.
    intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector and            (2) OJ C 63, 4.3.2000, p. 16.
    amending Directives 70/524/EEC, 74/63/EEC, 79/373/EEC
    and 82/471/EEC’(1), the French Republic has failed to
    comply with its obligations under the Treaty;
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                      Action brought on 22 December 1999 by the Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those                                     (Case C-503/99)
in Case C-495/99 (2); the period prescribed by Article 21 of
Directive 95/69/EC expired on 1 April 1998.
                                                                                (2000/C 79/20)
(1) OJ L 332 of 30.12.1995, p. 15.                                    An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
(2) OJ C 63, 4.3.2000, p. 16.                                         the Court of Justice on 22 December 1999 by the Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia,
                                                                      of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                      in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                      Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 1 December 1995 in the case of Petrus Wilhelmus Rutten v. Cross Medical Limited (Case C-383/95)

text:
No C 31 / 14              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        3 . 2 . 96
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    graphics     cards         for   automatic data-processing
                                                                               machines ?
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or              3 . If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative:
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 92/109/EEC ( 1 ), of 14 December                       Under which other customs tariff heading should
                                                                               products such as 'vista boards' ( 1 .) be classified ?
      1992 on the manufacture and the placing on the market
      of certain substances used in the illicit manufacture of
      narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, the
      Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under the provisions of that Directive and Article 5 of
      the EC Treaty;                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
                                                                         Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 1 December 1995
2 . order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                        in the case of Petrus Wilhelmus Rutten v. Cross Medical
                                                                                Limited
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                  Case C-383 /95 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those                                             ( 96/C 31 /28 )
in Case C-360/95 ( 2 ); the timelimit for transposition expired
on 1 July 1993 .                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
(') OJ No L 370, 19 . 12 . 1992 , p . 76 .                               Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
( 2 ) OJ No C 16 , 20 . 1 . 1996 , p . 7.                                1 December 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                         on 7 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                         Petrus Wilhelmus Rutten v. Cross Medical Limited on the
                                                                         following questions :
                                                                         ( a ) Where, in the performance of an employment contract,
                                                                                an employee carries out his work in more than one
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                     country, what are the criteria according to which he
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 November                            should be regarded as habitually carrying out his work
1995 in the case of Techex Computer + Grafik Vertriebs                          in one of those countries, within the meaning of
                  GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Miinchen                                 Article 5 ( 1 ) of the Brussels Convention ?
                           ( Case C-382/95 )
                              ( 96/C 31 /27 )                            ( b ) Is the fact that he spends most of his working time in
                                                                                one of those countries, or the fact that he spends more
                                                                                of his working time in another country or countries,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          decisive or significant in that regard ?
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzof
(Federal Finance Court) of 7 November 1995 , which was                   (c ) Is the fact that the employee resides or maintains in one
received at the Court Registry on 7 December 1995 , for a                       of those countries an office from which he prepares or
preliminary ruling in the case of Techex Computer + Grafik                      administers his work outside that country, and to
Vertriebs GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Miinchen on the                                  which he returns after every trip which he makes in
following questions:                                                            connection with his work, of significance in that
                                                                                regard ?
1 . Must Note 5 ( B ) to Chapter 84 of the Common Customs
      Tariff ( combined nomenclature 1988 to 1991 ) be
      interpreted as meaning that image processing, which the
      'vista boards' more particularly described in the grounds
      of the order can perform, is to be regarded as a 'specific
      function' within the meaning of that provision, that is to         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
      say as a function other than data processing, so that such         des Landes Brandenburg by order of that court of
      goods are not classifiable under heading No 8471 ?                 8 November 1995 in the case of Landboden-Agrardienste
                                                                                GmbH & Co . KG v. Finanzamt Calau
2 . If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative :                                             ( Case C-3 84/95 )
      Must heading No 8543 ( in this instance : subheading                                              ( 96/C 31 /29 )
      No 8543 80 80 of the combined nomenclature 1991 ,
      subheading        No      8543 80 90    of   the   combined        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      nomenclature 1988 to 1990 ) be interpreted as meaning              European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht des
      that the term '( other) electrical machines . . . having            Landes Brandenburg (Finance Court, Land of Brandenburg)
      individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere           of 8 November 1995 , which was received at the Court
      in this Chapter' covers products such as 'vista boards'             Registry on 8 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the
       ( 1 .) even if such boards are by their nature capable of         case of Landboden-Agrardienste GmbH & Co . KG v.
       being used not only for image processing but also as               Finanzamt Calau on the following questions:


C 118/44              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                 21.4.2001
       Removal from the Register of Case T-40/00 (1)                            Removal from the Register of Case T-155/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 118/119)                                                          (2001/C 118/121)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                          (Language of the case: English)
By order of 12 December 2000, the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    By order of 28 November 2000, the President of the Fifth
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-40/00, Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) v Com-                 Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
mission of the European Communities.                                      Case T-155/00, Acheme v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
      Removal from the Register of Case T-107/00 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the Register of Case T-196/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 118/120)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/122)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
By order of 12 December 2000, the President of the Second                                    (Language of the case: French)
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                  By order of 11 December 2000, the President of the Fifth
Case T-107/00, Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) v Com-                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
mission of the European Communities.                                      Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                          Case T-196/00, Luc Verheyden v Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.                                                 Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.


title: Case C-309/01 P: Appeal brought on 3 August 2001 by Council of the European Union against the judgment delivered on 14 June 2001 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-230/99 between Hans Mc Auley and Council of the European Union

text:
C 289/16              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.10.2001
Appeal brought on 3 August 2001 by Council of the                           did not take account of the interest of the service, contrary
European Union against the judgment delivered on                            to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations.
14 June 2001 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-230/99
between Hans Mc Auley and Council of the European
                              Union                                    (1) OJ 2000 C 6, p. 29.
                       (Case C-309/01 P)
                        (2001/C 289/30)
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 June 2001 by
                                                                       Stato in sede giurisdizionale, Quinta Sezione by order of
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       that court of 29 May 2001 in the case of Comune di
European Communities in Case T-230/99 (1) between Hans
                                                                       Udine against Diddi Dino Figli s.r.l. and A.G.E.S.I. —
Mc Auley and Council of the European Union was brought
                                                                       Associazione Nazionale Imprese Gestione and AMGA —
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       Azienda Multiservizi s.p.a. against Diddi Dino Figh s.r.l
3 August 2001 by the Council of the European Union,
                                                                                and A.G.E.S.I.
represented by Frederic Anton and Alain Pilette, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Case C-310/01)
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                                     (2001/C 289/31)
—     set aside the judgment in so far as it annuls Ms K’s             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      appointment;                                                     European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato in
                                                                       sede giurisdizionale, Quinta Sezione (Fifth Chamber of the
                                                                       Council of State, Judicial Division) of 29 May 2001, which was
—     at the same time dismiss the application at first instance;      received at the Court Registry on 7 August 2001, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of Comune di Udine against
                                                                       Diddi Dino Figli s.r.l. and A.G.E.S.I. — Associazione Nazionale
—     make an appropriate order as to costs.                           Imprese Gestione and AMGA — Azienda Multiservizi s.p.a.
                                                                       against Diddi Dino Figh s.r.l and A.G.E.S.I. on the following
                                                                       questions:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        a)   whether, under Article 2 of Council Directive
                                                                            92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992, the rules laid down in
                                                                            that directive apply to the subject-matter of the present
—     Distortion of the contents of the vacancy notice: to claim            case (concerning a contract for the supply of heat energy
      knowledge of languages and management skills to be the                and the provision of a range of services relating to the
      two decisive and practically only criteria contained in a             running of the heating installations), since the contract
      vacancy notice advertising a post which includes middle-              appears to concern the supply of goods rather than the
      management duties amounts to distortion of the terms of               provision of services, and what construction is to be
      the vacancy notice taken as a whole.                                  placed on that article in order to determine whether the
                                                                            contested measures are compatible with Community law;
—     Error in law inasmuch as the Court of First Instance
      independently carried out its own comparison of the              b)   whether, under Articles 6 and 1(b) of Council Directive
      merits of the candidates and it substituted its assessment            92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, the rules laid down in that
      for that of the appointing authority, thus going beyond               directive are to be held to apply to the subject-matter of
      verifying whether there was a manifest error of assess-               the present case, and what is the construction to be
      ment. By taking the view that Ms K’s experience was                   placed on that article in order to determine whether the
      ‘limited’, whereas that of the applicant was ‘very great’,            contested measures are compatible with Community law.
      the Court of First Instance encroached directly into ‘value
      judgment’ comparison, which is however the exclusive
      domain of the appointing authority.
                                                                       (1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
—     Error in law when the Court of First Instance examined
      the comparative merits of the candidates, inasmuch as it


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 30 January 2002 in Cases T-54/99: max.mobil Telekommunikation Service GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Article 90(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(3) EC) — Amount of fees charged by the Republic of Austria to operators of GSM networks — Complaint — Partial rejection of the complaint — Admissibility — Infringement of Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) and Article 90 of the EC Treaty — Statement of reasons)

text:
4.5.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 109/43
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        30 January 2002
                                                                                17 January 2002
in Cases T-54/99: max.mobil Telekommunikation Service
  GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (1)                      in Case T-47/00: Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
(Article 90(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(3) EC) —
Amount of fees charged by the Republic of Austria to
operators of GSM networks — Complaint — Partial rejec-                   (Association arrangements for the overseas countries and
tion of the complaint — Admissibility — Infringement of                  territories — Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar
Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) and                      and cocoa — Regulation (EC) No 2423/99 — Safeguard
     Article 90 of the EC Treaty — Statement of reasons)                   measures — Application for annulment — Admissibility)
                         (2002/C 109/85)                                                          (2002/C 109/86)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case T-54/99, max.mobil Telekommunikation Service
GmbH, established in Vienna (Austria), represented by S. Köck,
M. Pflügl, M. Esser-Wellié and M. Oder, lawyers, with an                 In Case T-47/00, Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV, established in
address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the                   Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by G. van der Wal, advocaat,
European Communities (agents: W. Mölls and K. Wiedner),                  with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by
supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands (agents:                         Kingdom of the Netherlands (agent: H. Sevenster), v Com-
M. A Fierstra and J. van Bakel and H.G. Sevenster): Application          mission of the European Communities (agents: T. van Rijn and
for partial annulment of Commission Decision No IV-C1/ROK                C. van der Hauwaert), supported by Kingdom of Spain (agent:
D(98) of 11 December 1998 in so far as it rejects the                    N. Dı́az Abad): Application for annulment of Commission
applicant’s complaint alleging that the Republic of Austria              Regulation (EC) No 2423/1999 of 15 November 1999 introd-
infringed Articles 86 and 90(1) of the EC Treaty (now                    ucing safeguard measures in respect of sugar falling within CN
Articles 82 EC and 86(1) EC) when determining the amount                 code 1701 and mixtures of sugar and cocoa falling within CN
of the fee payable for the grant of a GSM concession, Court of           codes 1806 10 30 and 1806 10 90 originating in the overseas
First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber,              countries and territories (OJ 1999 L 294, p. 11), Court of First
Extended Composition), composed of: A.W.H. Meij, President,              Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber),
K. Lenaerts, M. Jaeger, J. Pirrung and N.J. Forwood, Judges;             composed of: J. Azizi, President, K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger,
H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 January 2002,             Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, Registrar, has given a
in which it:                                                             judgment on 17 January 2002, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the application;                                         1.    Dismisses the action;
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of     2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and also those
      the Commission;                                                          incurred by the Commission;
3.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay its own costs.        3.    Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.                                               (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.


title: Case C-52/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Ordinario di Torino — Sezione GIP by order of that Court of 29 January 2003 in the case brought against Giuseppe Momblano

text:
C 83/10                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          5.4.2003
      (c)   order the defendant to pay the entire costs of both                 economic, asset or financial position which they are
            proceedings.                                                        required to provide and which concern the company
                                                                                itself or the group of companies to which it belongs?
Pleas and main arguments
                                                                          2.    With reference to the obligation upon each Member State
                                                                                to adopt ‘appropriate penalties’ for the infringements
Infringement of Community law, in particular infringement of                    provided for in the First Directive 68/151/EEC and the
Article 33 of the statute of the Court of Justice of the European               Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC ( 2), must those directives
Communities under which judgments are to state the reasons                      and, in particular, the combined provisions of Article
on which they are based, which means among other things                         44(2)(g) of the Treaty Establishing the European Com-
that the grounds relied on should be legally valid, that is to say              munity, Article 2(1)(f) and Article 6 of the First Directive
coherent, relevant, free of any error of law or fact, and                       and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the Fourth Directive, as
internally consistent.
                                                                                amended by Directive 83/349/EEC and Directive 90/605/
                                                                                EEC, be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a
—     the Court of First Instance did not take into consideration               Member State under which no penalty may be imposed
      all the evidence put forward by the applicant to demon-                   for breach of the duty to publish true and fair company
      strate the kind of harassment he was subjected to, nor                    documents and which lays down a system of penalties
      has it assessed it as a whole,                                            which are not responsive to the criteria of effectiveness,
                                                                                proportionality and deterrent effect?
—     the Court of First Instance has failed to mention new facts
      consisting in a new restructuring of departments which
      left the applicant the only person not to be reintegrated
      into his former unit,                                               3.    Must the directives mentioned, and in particular the
                                                                                provisions of Article 44(2)(g) of the Treaty Establishing
—     the Court of First Instance, without the least explanation,               the European Community, Article 2(1)(f) and Article 6 of
      refused to include in the case-file recent documents which                the First Directive and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the
      came to light after the written procedure was closed and                  Fourth Directive, as amended by Directive 83/349/EEC
      which rebutted the Commission’s arguments.                                and Directive 90/605/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
                                                                                the legislation of a Member State under which, in the case
                                                                                of breach of the duty to publish true and fair company
                                                                                information, which is intended to protect ‘the interests of
                                                                                shareholders and third parties’, permits only shareholders
                                                                                and creditors to apply for the imposition of penalties, thus
                                                                                depriving third parties generally of effective protection?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Ordinario di Torino — Sezione GIP by order of that                        4.    Must the directives mentioned, and in particular the
Court of 29 January 2003 in the case brought against                            provisions of Article 44(2)(g) of the Treaty Establishing
                      Giuseppe Momblano                                         the European Community, Article 2(1)(f) and Article 6 of
                                                                                the First Directive and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the
                          (Case C-52/03)                                        Fourth Directive, as amended by Directive 83/349/EEC
                                                                                and Directive 90/605/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
                                                                                the legislation of a Member State under which, in the case
                          (2003/C 83/16)                                        of breach of the duty to publish true and fair company
                                                                                information, which is intended to protect ‘the interests of
                                                                                shareholders and third parties’, lays down rules for the
                                                                                prosecution of offences and a system of penalties which
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          are differentiated, reserving to cases where material
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Ordinario di                     damage or loss is caused to shareholders or creditors the
Torino — Sezione GIP (District Court, Turin, — Preliminary                      right to submit a complaint and apply for the imposition
Investigations Section) of 29 January 2003, received at the                     of sanctions and reserving to such cases sanctions which
Court Registry on 10 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling                    are serious and effective?
in the case brought against Giuseppe Momblano on the
following questions:
1.    May Article 6 of Directive 68/151/EEC (1) be interpreted
      as imposing an obligation upon the Member States to                 (1 ) OJ L 65 of 14.3.1968, p. 8.
      establish appropriate penalties not only for failure on the         (2 ) OJ L 222 of 14.8.1978, p. 11.
      part of commercial companies to publish their balance
      sheet and profit and loss statement but also for publishing
      inaccurate versions of those statements or of other
      company information addressed to shareholders or the
      public or of any other information concerning their


title: Appeal brought on 24 March 1995 by D against the judgment delivered on 26 January 1995 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-549/93 between D and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-89/95 P)

text:
No C 159/14           | EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24 . 6 . 95
Appeal by the Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza ed Assistenza a              aware of the factual situation affecting the appellant and
favore degli Avvocati e Procuratori against the Order of the             other Italian provident organizations, adopted a provision
Court of First Instance of the European Communities of                   intended specifically, given its effect, to exclude the
11 January 1995 in Case T-116/94 , Cassa Nazionale di                    appellant and similar Italian provident organizations from
Previdenza ed Assistenza a favore degli Avvocati e                       the benefit of the prohibition contained in Article 104a ( 1 )
  Procuratori against the Council of the European Union                  of the EC Treaty, contrary to the purpose of that provision.
                         ( Case C-87/95 P)                               Whilst it may be true in the abstract that the inadequacy of
                                                                         the alternative remedies available before the national courts
                            ( 95/C 159/27 )                              cannot give rise to an action for annulment under
                                                                         Article 173 of the EC Treaty, the fact that in this case an
An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice of the                 effective action before the courts is lacking, given the
European Communities on 20 March 1995 by the Cassa                       slowness of proceedings — especially civil proceedings — in
Nazionale di Previdenza ed Assistenza a favore degli                     Italy, gives rise to serious doubts as to the adequacy of the
Avvocati e Procuratori , with its registered office in Rome,             procedure for judicial review of the acts of Community
represented by Pietro Adonnino, Mario Sanino, Maurizio de                institutions and thus as to the effectiveness of the rights of
Stefano and Alberto Colabianchi, with an address for                     the defence .
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marianne
Goebel, 1 Rue François Faber, against the order of the Court
                                                                         (M OJ No L 332 , 31 . 12 . 1993 , p . 4 .
of First Instance of the European Communities of
11 January 1 995 in Case T- 1 1 6/94 between the appellant
and the Council of the European Union.
The appellant claims that the Court should :
( a ) annul the order of the Court of First Instance of
      11 January 1994 in Case T- 1 1 6/94, in so far as it
      declared inadmissible the appellant's alternative claim            Appeal brought on 24 March 1995 by D against the
      for the annulment of the last indent of Article 4 ( 2 ) of         judgment delivered on 26 January 1995 by the Fourth
      Council Regulation ( EC ) No 3604/93 of 13 December                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities in Case T-549/93 between D and the
      1993 specifying definitions for the application of the
      prohibition of privileged access referred to in                             Commission of the European Communities
      Article 1 04a of the Treaty ( 1 ) in so far as it provides that                           ( Case C-89/95 P)
      institutions forming part of the 'general government                                         ( 95/C 159/28 )
      sector ' defined in accordance with the ESA are excluded
      from the definition of ' financial institutions';
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 January
( b ) if the state of the pleadings permits, grant the relief            1995 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
      sought by the appellant at first instance in its alternative       of the European Communities in Case T-549/93 between D
      claim    for the annulment         of the     last indent of       and the Commission of the European Communities was
      Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Regulation, in so far as it provides        brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      that institutions forming part of the 'general                     Communities on 24 March 1995 by D , represented by Eric
      government sector' defined in accordance with the ESA              Boigelot, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
      are   excluded      from    the   definition     of  ' financial   Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
      institutions '; or
      refer the matter to the Court of First Instance for the            The appellant claims that the Court should :
      examination and determination of the merits;
                                                                         — annul the contested judgment ( l ) in its entirety,
(c ) order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings
      and of the proceedings before the Court of First
      Instance .                                                         — itself rule on the dispute and, allowing the appellant's
                                                                             original application, annul the respondent's decision
                                                                             imposing on him the disciplinary measure referred to in
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          Article 86 ( 2 ) ( f) of the Staff Regulations, namely,
                                                                             removal from post without withdrawal of entitlement to
The appellant maintains that its alternative claim against the               retirement pension, adopted on 30 September 1993 with
Council for the annulment of the last indent of Article 4 ( 2 )              effect from 1 December 1993 and prohibiting the
of Regulation ( EC ) No 3604/93 , in so far as it provides that              appellant from performing his duties until 30 November
institutions forming part of the 'general government sector'                 1993 , and, in so far as may be necessary, annul the
defined in accordance with the ESA are excluded from                         express decision rejecting the complaint against the said
the definition of ' financial institutions ' satisfies the                   disciplinary measure lodged by the appellant pursuant to
requirements for admissibility laid down by Article 173 of                   Article 90 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations on 23 February
the EC Treaty. The appellant argues essentially that, when                   1994 and notified on 24 February 1994, and,
adopting the contested Regulation, the Council, being                        consequently, rule that the respondent should reinstate
 ---pagebreak--- 24 . 6 . 95            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 159/ 15
    the appellant in all his duties , grade, step and salary with      Compte , represented by Eric Boigelot, with an address for
    retroactive effect to the date on which the contested              service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
    decision took effect, in accordance with the decision              Rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
    which the Court adopts, and further order the
    respondent to pay to the appellant all his arrears of              The appellant claims that the Court should :
    salary, including the benefit which he receives and are
    due to him from 1 December 1993 until the date of the              1 , declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;
    decision to be adopted , together with interest at the
    annual rate of 8 % from the date on which each                     2 , consequently:
    instalment of salary fell due, and order the respondent in
                                                                            ( a ) annul the contested judgment, save in so far as it
    any event to pay the costs of the two actions ,
                                                                                acknowledges that the appellant has suffered
                                                                                non-material damage for which the respondent is
— order the Commission of the European Communities to                             ordered to pay him compensation in the sum of Bfrs
    pay the entire costs of the two actions .                                     200 000;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         ( b ) adjudicate itself on the dispute and , upholding the
                                                                                appellant's original claims :
Infringement of Community law, in particular :                                    — first, in Case T-90/91 , annul the decision of
                                                                                18 April 1991 by which the appointing
— infringement of Article 33 of the Statute of the Court of                          authority retroactively revoked its decision of
    Justice of the EEC, applicable to the Court of First                             24 January 1991 recognizing the occupational
    Instance of the European Communities by virtue of                                nature of the appellant's disease and decided
    Article 46 of the said Statute, which was inserted therein                       that a different decision should be taken in place
    by Article 7 of the Council Decision of 24 October 1988                          of the said decision of 24 January 1991 in the
    establishing a Court of First Instance of the European                           light of the judgment delivered in Case T-26/89
    Communities; the obligation to state the reasons on                              between the appellant and the European
    which judgments are based requires those reasons, in                             Parliament,     and    annul   the   decision   of
    particular, to be legally admissible , that is to say,                           23 September 1991 rejecting the appellant's
    relevant, free from errors of law or fact and                                    complaint lodged on 4 June 1991 , and
    consistent,                                                                      consequently order the respondent to pay to
                                                                                him the sum of Bfrs 9 147 091 together with
— breach of the general legal principles applying under                              default interest at the annual rate of 10 % from
    Community law, namely, in particular, the principles of                          24 January 1991 ,
    proportionality, of the right to a fair hearing and of
    impartiality, and also of the general legal principle that                    — second, in Case T-62/92, annul the decision of
    all administrative acts must be based on reasons which                           20 January 1992 by which the appointing
    are legally admissible, that is to say, relevant and free                        authority decided that the appellant was not
    from errors of fact and/or law; this means, in particular,                       suffering from an occupational disease within
    that full proof of the facts relied on must be                                   the meaning of the Rules on the Insurance of
    furnished .                                                                      Officials of the European Communities against
                                                                                the risk of Accident and of Occupational
                                                                                Disease, together with the decision of 4 June
(M OJ No C 54 , 4 . 3 . 1995 , p . lé .
                                                                                1992 rejecting the appellant's complaint lodged
                                                                                on 8 April 1992 and notified on 10 April 1992,
                                                                                and consequenly order the respondent to pay to
                                                                                him the sum of Bfrs 9 147 091 together with
                                                                                default interest at the annual rate of 10 % with
                                                                                effect, at all events and subject to all necessary
                                                                                express reservations, from 24 January 1991 ;
Appeal brought on 24 March 1995 by Henri de Compte
against the judgment delivered on 26 January 1995 by the               3 , order the European Parliament to pay the entire costs of
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European               the two actions .
Communities in Joined Cases T-90/91 and T-62/92
 between Henri de Compte and the European Parliament
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                        ( Case C-90/95 P)
                           ( 95/C 159/29 )                             Infringement of Community law, in particular :
                                                                       — infringement of Article 33 of the Statute of the Court of
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 January                     Justice of the EEC, applicable to the Court of First
1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                Instance of the European Communities by virtue of
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-90/91 and                       Article 46 of the said Statute, which was inserted therein
T-62/92 between Henri de Compte and the European                           by Article 7 of the Council Decision of 24 October 1988
Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the                  establishing a Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities on 24 March 1995 by Henri de                          Communities; the obligation to state the reasons on


title: Action brought on 5 May 1997 by David T. Keeling against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Case T-148/97)

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 199/39
     the revenue — including inter alia income from sales                    No L 22, 24 . 1 . 1997, p. 1 ) in so far as it concerns the
     and additions to his herd — which he would in the                       applicants, and
     ordinary course of events have received from the
     quantities of milk that he would have delivered if,                — order the Council to bear the costs of this proceeding.
     during the period from 1 April 1984 (the date on
     which Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 entered into force )            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     and 31 March 1994 ( the date of expiry of the 1993/94
     levy period ), had he been in possession of the milk               Champion Stationery Mfg Co . Ltd and Sun Kwong Metal
     reference quantity to which he was entitled, and, on               Manufacturer Co . Ltd produce ring binder mechanisms in
     the other hand, the income which he actually received              the People's Republic of China . Both companies sell ring
     during that period,                                                binder mechanisms to a related company in the United
                                                                        States, US Ring Binder Corporation which resells them to
— declare that interest at the rate of 8 % per annum, or                the Community.
     such other rate as the Court shall in its discretion
     think fit, is payable to the applicant on the                      On 20 January 1997, the Council adopted the contested
     compensation due to him, covering the period from                  Regulation, which set the definitive anti-dumping duty on
     the date of delivery of the Court's judgment to the                imports from the People's Republic of China at 39,4 per
     date of payment in full,                                           cent except for imports from World Wide Stationery
                                                                        which were subject to a definitive duty of 32,5 per cent.
— order the defendants to pay the costs.
                                                                        The applicants claim that, by failing to provide definitive
                                                                        disclosure, the Community institutions have denied them
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        an opportunity to be effectively heard. The adoption of a
                                                                        significantly higher duty without any prior definitive
On 18 February 1994, the applicant, who in 1982 had                     disclosure and opportunity to comment resulted,
taken a lease of a SLOM holding the SLOM undertaking                    corresponding to the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice
in respect of which expired on 9 June 1984, was granted a               of the European Communities, in a denial of the
milk quota pursuant to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2055/93 (');               applicants' fundamental right to be informed of the facts
however, he was unable to use that quota until the                      and considerations on the basis of which the authority is
commencement of the 1994/95 levy period .                               minded to act. The Community Institutions have failed to
                                                                        make every effort to provide the applicants with
(') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2055/93 of 19 July 1993               information relevant to the defence of its interests .
    allocating a special reference quantity to certain producers of
    milk and milk products ( OJ No L 187, 29 . 7. 1993 , p. 8 ).        For the above reasons, the contested Regulation should be
                                                                        annuled, since the Community institutions have failed to
                                                                        comply with fundamental procedural rules in violation
                                                                        with Community law which affect its validity.
Action brought on 30 April 1997 by Champion Stationery
Mfg Co. Ltd., Sun Kwong Metal Manufacturer Co. Ltd
and US Ring Binder Corporation against the Council of
                       the European Union                               Action brought on 5 May 1997 by David T. Keeling
                         ( Case T-147/97)                               against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs )
                           ( 97/C 199/90 )
                                                                                ( Case T-148/97 )
                 (Language of the case: English)                                                  ( 97/C 199/91 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European               An action against the Office for Harmonization in the
Communities on 30 April 1997 by Champion Stationery                      Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs ) was brought
Mfg Co. Ltd, Sun Kwong Metal Manufacturer Co. Ltd                        before the Court of First Instance of the European
and US Ring Binder Corporation, represented by Richard                   Communities on 5 May 1997 by David T. Keeling,
Luff, of Van Bael & Bellis, with an address for service in
                                                                         represented by Professor A. A. Dashwood, instructed by
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 , rue                  Edward Lewis with an address for service in Luxembourg
 Goethe .
                                                                         at the Chambers of Arsene Kronshagen, 22 , rue Marie
                                                                         Adelaide .
The applicants claim that the Court should :
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 119/97 of
      20 January 1997 imposing a definitive anti-dumping                 — annul Decision No ADM-97-3 of the President of
      duty on imports of ring binder mechanisms originating                   the Office of 21 February 1997 concerning the
      in Malaysia and the People's Republic of China ( OJ                     organization of the Boards of Appeal, as revised on
 ---pagebreak--- No C 199/40          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 6 . 97
     27 February 1997, and in particular Article 2 thereof,        Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
     and                                                           Case T-259/94 : Michel Pouzol v. Court of Auditors of the
                                                                   European Communities .
— to order the Office to pay the costs of the action.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                (') OJ No C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994 .
The applicant, a member of the First Board of Appeal of
the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs ), contests the abovementioned
Decision of the President of the Office, adopted on
21 February 1997.                                                            Removal from the register of T-3 00/94 ( l )
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/93 )
The Decision concerns certain aspects of the organization
of the Boards of Appeal created pursuant to Article 130 of
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Council Regulation (EC ) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993
on the Community trademark.
                                                                   By order of 11 March 1997 the President of the Fifth
The applicant submits that the Decision, and in particular         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
its Article 2, should be annuled on the following grounds.         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                   Case T-300/94 : Henri Maurissen v. Court of Auditors of
Firstly, Article 2 of the Decision is contrary to                  the European Communities.
Articles 112 ( 1 ) and 131 ( 2 ) of the Regulation. It thus
infringes a rule relating to the application of the Treaty         O OJ No C 316, 12 . 11 . 1994 .
within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173
of the EC Treaty.
 Secondly, the Decision is unlawful because the President
 failed to consult two thirds of the members of the Boards
 of Appeal appointed by the Council of Ministers and
 because the Members who were consulted ( i.e. the                           Removal from the register of T-115/95 (')
 chairmen ) were given insufficient time to consider the                                        ( 97/C 199/94 )
 matter properly. That failure to engage in proper
 consultations amounts to an infringement of an essential                           (Language of the case: French)
 procedural requirement within the meaning of the second
 paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty.                         By order of 30 April 1997 the President of the Second
                                                                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
 Thirdly, the Decision does not contain an adequate                 Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
 statement of the reasons on which Article 2 is based .             Case T-115/95 : Michel Pouzol v. Court of Auditors of the
                                                                    European Communities .
 Fourthly, the President has no competence to adopt any
 Decision introducing a hierarchical relationship within the
 Boards of Appeal ( as he purports to do in Article 2 (2 ) of       (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
 the Decision ) or to subject the entire membership of the
 Boards of Appeal to the hierarchical authority of the Vice
 President for Legal Affairs and of the President himself.
 Article 2 is therefore void for lack of competence within
 the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the
 EC Treaty.                                                                    Removal from the register of T-8/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/95 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    By order of 28 April 1997 the President of the Second
           Removal from the register of T-259/94 (')
                                                                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                         ( 97/C 199/92                              Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                 (Language of the case: French)                      Case T-8/96 : Antonia Carparelli v. Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities.
  By order of 30 April 1997 the President of the Second
  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             (') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .


title: Case T-262/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2017 — Kiselev v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening Ukraine — Freezing of funds — Restrictions on entry into the territories of the Member States — Natural person actively supporting or implementing actions undermining or threatening Ukraine — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Freedom of expression — Proportionality — Rights of defence)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2017 — Kiselev v Council
   (Case T-262/15) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening Ukraine - Freezing of funds - Restrictions on entry into the territories of the Member States - Natural person actively supporting or implementing actions undermining or threatening Ukraine - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Freedom of expression - Proportionality - Rights of defence))
   (2017/C 249/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Dmitrii Konstantinovich Kiselev (Korolev, Russia) (represented by: J. Linneker, Solicitor, T. Otty, Barrister, and B. Kennelly QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of (i) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/432 of 13 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 70, p. 47) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/427 of 13 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 70, p. 1), (ii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1524 of 14 September 2015 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 239, p. 157) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1514 of 14 September 2015 implementing Regulation No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 239, p. 30), and (iii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/359 of 10 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 67, p. 37) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/353 of 10 March 2016 implementing Regulation No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 67, p. 1), in so far as those measures apply to the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Dmitrii Konstantinovich Kiselev to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München, by order of that court of 5 May 1995, in the case of Benincasa v. Dentalkit srl (Case C-269/95)

text:
No C 268/ 14           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14 . 10 . 95
2.2 . the Pharmaceutical was first put on the market in a              preliminary ruling in the case of Benincasa v . Dentalkit srl
      country by the Proprietor after that country's accession         on the following questions :
      to the EC but at a time when the Pharmaceutical could
      not be protected by a product patent in the                      ( 1 ) is a plaintiff to be regarded as a consumer within the
      country ;
                                                                              meaning of the first paragraph of Article 13 and the
                                                                              first paragraph of Article 14 of the Convention on
2.3 a third party imports the Pharmaceutical from that                        jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgements in civil
      country into the Member State;                                          and commercial matters ('the Convention ') even if his
                                                                              action relates to a contract which he concluded not for
2.4 and the patent legislation in the Member State granted                    the purpose of a trade which he was already pursuing
      the proprietor of the Patent the right to oppose by legal               but a trade to be taken up only at a future date ( here : a
      action the importation of the Pharmaceutical from that                  franchising agreement concluded for the purpose of
      country,                                                                setting up a business )?
                                                                       (2 ) If question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative :
do the rules set forth in the EC Treaty concerning the free
movement of goods prevent the Proprietor from availing                        does point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 13 of the
himself of the right referred to in paragraph 2.4 above, in                   Convention ( contract for the sale of goods on
particular if:                                                                instalment credit terms) cover a franchising agreement
                                                                              which obliges the plaintiff to buy from the other party
      ( a ) the Proprietor had and continues to have a legal                  to the agreement, over a period of several ( three ) years,
            and/or ethical obligation to market and to                        the articles and goods required to equip and operate a
            continue marketing the Pharmaceutical in that                     business (without instalment credit terms having been
            country; and/or                                                   agreed ) and to pay an initial fee and, as from the second
                                                                              year of the business , a licence fee of 3 % of
      ( b ) that country's and/or EC legislation effectively                  turnover ?
            requires that, once the Pharmaceutical is put on
                                                                       ( 3 ) Does the court of a Member State specified in an
            the market in that country, the Proprietor supplies
                                                                              agreement conferring jurisdiction have exclusive
            and continues to supply sufficient quantities to
                                                                              jurisdiction pursuant to the first sentence of the first
            satisfy the needs of domestic patients; and/or
                                                                              paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention even when
                                                                              an action is inter alia for a declaration of the invalidity
      ( c ) that country's legislation grants to its authorities,
                                                                              of a franchising agreement in which the agreement
            and its authorities exercise, the right to fix the sale
                                                                              conferring jurisdiction is itself contained, the following
            price of the Pharmaceutical in that country and
            legislation prohibits the sale of the Pharmaceutical              wording ( English translation ) 'the courts in Florence
                                                                              have jurisdiction over any dispute concerning the
            at any other price; and/or
                                                                              interpretation , performance or other aspect of this
      ( d ) the price of the Pharmaceutical in that country has               contract' being separately accepted with a reference to
                                                                              Articles 1341 and 1342 of the Italian Codice Civile ?
            been fixed by its authorities at a level at which
            substantial exports of the Pharmaceutical from
            such country to the Member State are anticipated
            with the result that the economic value of the
            Patent would be significantly eroded and research          Appeal brought on 9 August 1995 by C. Kik against the
            and development for future pharmaceuticals                 order made on 19 June 1995 by the First Chamber of the
            planned by the Proprietor significantly                    Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
            underminded, contrary to the rationale                     Case T-107/94 between C. Kik and the Council of the
            underlying the recent introduction by the EC               European Union and the Commission of the European
            Council     of     the   Supplementary     Protection            Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain
            Certificate .
                                                                                ( Case C-270/95 P )
                                                                                ( 95/C 268/30 )
                                                                       An appeal against the order made on 19 June 1995 by the
                                                                       Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                       Case T-107/94 between C. Kik and the Council of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                            European Union and the Commission of the European
Oberlandesgericht Miinchen, by order of that court of                  Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain , was
  5 May 1995 , in the case of Benincasa v. Dentalkit srl               brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                          ( Case C-269/95 )                            Communities on 9 August 1995 by C. Kik, represented by
                            ( 95/C 268/29 )                            G. L. Kooy, of the Hague Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the Chambers of N. Decker, 16 Avenue
                                                                       Marie-Thérèse .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the                                The appellant claims that the Court should :
Oberlandesgericht Miinchen ( Higher Regional Court,
Munich ), Eighth Chamber, of 5 May 1995 , which was                    — set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance of
received at the Court Registry on 9 August 1995 , for a                      19 June 1995 dismissing as inadmissible the applicant's


title: Case T-159/02: Action brought on 17 May 2002 by Masdar (U.K.) Ltd against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.8.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 202/29
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             INSTANCE
                                                                            —     annul the Commission’s Decision contained in its letter
                           of 25 June 2002                                        of 7 March 2002 refusing access to the documents
                                                                                mentioned in the applicant’s confirmatory request dated
in Case T-34/02 R: B v Commission of the European                                 3 December 2001;
                            Communities
                                                                            —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
(Interlocutory proceedings — State aid — Aid for construc-
tion and conversion of vessels granted as development
assistance — Recovery — Legitimate expectations — Prima
                          facie — Urgency)
                           (2002/C 202/47)                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            The applicant in the present case is the same as in case T-68/
                                                                            02, Masdar (U.K.) -v- Commission, and its object is the
                                                                            Decision of the Commission expressly rejecting the applicant’s
In Case T-34/02 R: B, residing in Versailles (France), and                  request for access to the two audit reports mentioned in the
255 others, represented by P. Kirch and N. Chahid-Nouraï,                   notice to the Official Journal of the European Communities
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                 relating to the above mentioned case (not yet published).
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Rozet)
— application for suspension of operation of Commission
Decision 2001/882/EC of 25 July 2001 on the State aid
implemented by France in the form of development assistance                 The applicant submits that the Commission has committed an
for the cruise vessel ‘Le Levant’, built by Alstom Leroux Naval             infringement of Article 253 EC in that the contested Decision
for operation in Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon (OJ 2001 L 327,                   failed to give adequate reasons for relying on the mandatory
p. 37) — the President of the Court of First Instance made an               exclusion in the first and second indents of Article 4(2) of
order on 25 June 2002, the operative part of which is as                    Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001 (1).
follows:
1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
                                                                            The Commission has, in the applicant’s view, made a manifest
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                   error of assessment in the application of Article 4(2) of this
                                                                            Regulation, in that the contested Decision found that the grant
                                                                            of the applicant’s request would undermine the protection of
                                                                            the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits, as well
                                                                            as the protection of the commercial interest of a third
                                                                            undertaking.
Action brought on 17 May 2002 by Masdar (U.K.) Ltd                          The applicant contends that the Commission has also made a
  against the Commission of the European Communities                        manifest error of assessment in the application of Article 4(2)
                                                                            of the above mentioned Regulation, and has infringed the
                                                                            general principles of law, in so far as the contested Decision
                           (Case T-159/02)                                  found that there was no overriding public interest in disclosure
                                                                            of the audit reports to the applicant.
                           (2002/C 202/48)
                    (Language of the case: English)                         (1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and
                                                                                the Council of 30 May 2001, regarding public access to European
                                                                                Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJEC L 145, of
                                                                                31.5.2001, p. 43).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 May 2002 by Masdar (U.K.)
Ltd, represented by Philip Bentley QC and Patrick Green,
Barrister.


title: Case C-541/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno Sodišče Republike Slovenije (Republic of Slovenia) lodged on 25 October 2011 — Jožef Grilc v Slovensko zavarovalno združenje GIZ

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/31

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno Sodišče Republike Slovenije (Republic of Slovenia) lodged on 25 October 2011 — Jožef Grilc v Slovensko zavarovalno združenje GIZ
      (Case C-541/11)
      (2012/C 25/54)
      Language of the case: Slovenian

         Referring court

      Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Jožef Grilc

         Defendant: Slovensko zavarovalno združenje GIZ

         Question referred

      Where a person has suffered damage as a result of a road traffic accident that occurred in a Member State other than his State of residence and was caused by a vehicle insured and normally based in a Member State, must the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/26/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the compensation body of the Member State of residence of the injured party has the capacity to be a party to legal proceedings instituted by the injured party in order to obtain compensation if, within three months of the injured party’s presenting his claim to the insurance undertaking responsible for the vehicle which caused the damage or its claims representative, neither the insurance undertaking nor its claims representative has provided a reasoned reply to the claim?

         (1)  OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England), Bristol Mercantile Court, by order of that court of 20 January 1995, in the case of Woodspring District Council against Bakers of Nailsea Ltd (Case C-27/95)

text:
No C 101/2             PEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22 . 4 . 95
1 , a motor vehicle tax applied without distinction to                        (a ) what if any temporal limitation is to be placed upon
      vehicles assembled or manufactured in the Member                              such invalidity and/or upon its effects ?
      State where it is levied and to both new and used
      imported vehicles is not a customs duty or a charge                     ( b) In the circumstances of this case, is a national
      having an effect equivalent thereto within the meaning                        competent authority prohibited by Community law
      of Articles 9 and 12 of the EC Treaty;                                        from enforcing a provision of domestic legislation
                                                                                requiring health inspections at slaughterhouses to
                                                                                be carried out by or under the supervision of
2, it is incompatible with Article 95 of the EC Treaty for a                        veterinary surgeons when that provision purports
      Member State to levy on second-hand cars from other                           to implement Directive 64/433/EEC as amended
      Member States a tax which, calculated without taking                          but which also has or purports to have another,
      the vehicle's actual depreciation into account, exceeds                       independent legal basis in national law ?
      the residual tax incorporated in the value of similar
      second-hand motor vehicles already registered in the
      national territory.                                               4. Is it contrary to Articles 39 and/or 40 ( 3 ) of the EC
                                                                              Treaty, or the general principles of equality and/or
                                                                              proportionality, for the costs of health inspections by
f 1 ) OJ No C 231 , 27. 8 . 1993 .                                            veterinary surgeons of animals intended for slaughter to
                                                                              be borne by the slaughterhouse at which the animals are
                                                                              to be slaughtered ?
                                                                        (!) OJ No L 121 , 29 . 7. 1964, p. 2012 .
                                                                        (2) OJ No L 268 , 24. 9 . 1991 , p. 69.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England), Bristol Mercantile Court, by order of that
court of 20 January 1995 , in the case of Woodspring District
               Council against Bakers of Nailsea Ltd
                                                                        References for a preliminary ruling from the
                           (Case C-27/95 )                              Marknadsdomstolen by three decisions of that court of
                            ( 95/C 101/03 )                             7 February 1995 in the case of Konsumentombudsmannen
                                                                        v. De Agostini ( Svenska) Fôrlag AB and in the case of
                                                                             Konsumentombudsmannen v. TV-Shop i Sverige AB
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                (Cases C-34/95 , C-35/95 and C-36/95 )
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice ( England ), Bristol Mercantile Court, of 20 January                                      ( 95/C 101/04 )
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
6 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of               References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
Woodspring District Council against Bakers of Nailsea Ltd,              European Communities by three decisions of the
on the following questions:                                             Marknadsdomstolen [Market Court] of 7 February 1994,
                                                                        which were received at the Court Registry on 1 3 February
                                                                        1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
1 , is a private party in the circumstances of this case                Konsumentombudsmannen [Consumers' Ombudsman] v.
      entitled to rely in the national court upon Articles 39 and       De Agostini ( Svenska ) AB ( Case C-34/94 ) and in the cases of
      40 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty, and/or the general principles of       Konsumentombudsmannen v,. TV-Shop i Sverige AB ( Cases
      proportionality and equal treatment, as grounds for               C-35/95 and C-36/95 ) on the following questions :
      challenging the validity of Community legislation ?
                                                                        are Article 30 or Article 59 of the Treaty or Directive
2. Is Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on                   89/552/EEC (*) of 3 October 1989 to be interpreted as:
      health problems affecting intra-Community trade in
      fresh meat (*) as amended and replaced by Council
      Directive 91 /497/EEC of 29 July 1991 amending and
                                                                        (a ) preventing a Member State from taking action against
      consolidating Directive 64/433/EEC on health problems
                                                                               television advertisements which an advertiser arranges
                                                                               to have broadcast from another Member State (in all
      affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat to extend                  three cases );
      it to the production and marketing of fresh meat ( 2)
      invalid, having regard to Articles 39 and 40 ( 3 ) of the EC
      Treaty and the general principle of proportionality, in so        ( b ) precluding application of Article 11 ( 1 ) of the Radiolag
      far as it requires and/or permits Member States to                        ( 1966:755 ) prohibiting advertisements directed at
      require health inspections at slaughterhouses to be                      children (in Case C-34/95 only)?
      carried out by veterinary surgeons and/or in so far as it
      requires ante-mortem inspections to be carried out?               (!) OJ No L 298 , 17. 10 . 1989, p . 23 .
3 . If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative: