title: Case T-146/03: Action brought on 15 April 2003 by the Asociación de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid and the Federación Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 171/34               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         19.7.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the explicit rejection of the Commission of 11 July
      2002 BSS01 MS CDL/GS/MSG D (02) No 6779 in reply                     —     annul the Commission Decision of 11 December 2002
      to the request registered under No D/256/02 submitted                      which found that measures to support agricultural coop-
      by the applicant pursuant to Article 90(1) of the Staff                    eratives, by virtue of which only such cooperatives are
      Regulations;                                                               able to distribute unlimited amounts of fuel to non-
                                                                                member third parties whilst enjoying preferential tax
—     annul, in so far as necessary, the refusal to register the                 treatment and which are contained in Royal Decree
      applicant’s fresh complaint;                                               Law 10/2000 of 6 October on emergency support for
                                                                                agriculture, fisheries and transport do not constitute State
                                                                                aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC;
—     order the Commission to pay the entire costs.
                                                                           —     order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is an official working for the defendant. She is
bringing her action against the rejection of a request concern-
ing the inclusion of certain documents in her personnel file               Pleas in law and main arguments
and to be informed of alleged written defamatory statements
made in her regard. In support of her action, she alleges breach
of the protection of dignity and equality between men and
women at work, enshrined in Article 31 of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as a result of the               The applicants in the present action, who have also brought
fact that the defendant failed to take the necessary measures to           Case T-95/03 (Asociación de Empresarios de Estaciones de
ensure the protection of the applicant against the alleged                 Servicio de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid and the
denigration by other officials of the defendant institution,               Federación Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio) ( 1), are challeng-
which amounts, in her view, to harassment. She also alleges                ing the Commission’s refusal to regard as State aid the
infringement of Articles 25, 26 and 45 of the Staff Regulations,           measures in Royal Decree Law 10/2000, which allow only
of the obligation to provide reasons and of the rights of                  agricultural cooperatives, and not other cooperatives which
defence.                                                                   also benefit from special protection, to sell B diesel to non-
                                                                           member third parties without being subject to any limit
                                                                           and without losing the tax advantages granted to specially
                                                                           protected cooperatives. The contested decision concludes that
                                                                           the measures at issue do not constitute State aid, since they are
                                                                           justified by the nature or general scheme of the tax system.
Action brought on 15 April 2003 by the Asociación de
Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad                      In support of their claims, the applicants maintain that the
Autónoma de Madrid and the Federación Catalana de                          defendant has made various errors of fact and law:
Estaciones de Servicio against the Commission of the
                     European Communities
                                                                           —     in exempting the Spanish Government from its duty to
                                                                                provide an explanation for the measures at issue on the
                         (Case T-146/03)                                         basis of the nature of the tax system. The contested
                                                                                decision is at odds with the arguments put forward by
                         (2003/C 171/58)                                         the Government (need for further liberalisation in the fuel
                                                                                sector as a structural measure responding to the increase
                                                                                in the price of crude oil and the depreciation of the euro
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                               against the dollar).
                                                                           —     in concluding that Royal Decree Law 10/2000 is consist-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        ent with the nature of the tax system and in basing that
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                       finding on an incomplete and incorrect analysis of the
European Communities on 15 April 2003 by the Asociación                          tax system applicable to cooperatives.
de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad
Autónoma de Madrid and the Federación Catalana de Estacion-
es de Servicio, established in Madrid and Barcelona respectively,          —     in finding that the contested measures do not constitute
represented by Raimundo Ortega Bueno, lawyer.                                    State aid.
 ---pagebreak--- 19.7.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 171/35
The applicants assert, in particular, that there is no special tax         Pleas in law and main arguments
system applying specifically to agricultural cooperatives and
giving rise to certain tax obligations which the contested
measures are specifically intended to offset. However, the fact
that the measures do not consist in the grant ex novo of a tax             Applicant for Com-             T.I.M.E.ART      ULUSLARARASI
advantage but entail an exemption from obligations with                    munity trade mark:             SAAT TICARETI VE DI– TICAR-
which cooperatives have hitherto had to comply when selling                                               ET A.–.
fuel to third parties or members, an exemption which allows
them not to lose their pre-existing preferential tax treatment,
does not negate the existence of a new advantage within the
                                                                           Community trade mark           figurative mark QUANTUM —
meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
                                                                           sought:                        Application No 625 913 for
                                                                                goods in Class 14 (watches and
                                                                                jewellery)
( 1) OJ C 112, 10.5.2003, p. 43.
                                                                           Proprietor of mark or          the applicant
                                                                           sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                           sition proceedings:
                                                                           Mark or sign cited in          French figurative mark QUANTI-
                                                                           opposition:                    EME, No 1555274, registered for
Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Devinlec Developpe-                                                    goods in Classes 14 and 18
ment Innovation Leclerc against the Office for Harmonis-                                                  (including watches, clocks and
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                    watchstraps)
                              (OHIM)
                                                                           Decision of the Oppo-          Registration refused
                         (Case T-147/03)                                   sition Division:
                         (2003/C 171/59)                                   Decision of the Board of       annulment of the decision of the
                                                                           Appeal:                        Opposition Division and dis-
                                                                                missal of the opposition
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           Pleas in law:                  Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                            94 (1) (likelihood of confusion)
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                                and disregard for Rule 50 of the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                                Regulation (EC) No 2868/
30 April 2003 by Devinlec Developpement Innovation Leclerc,                                               95 (2) implementing the Com-
established in Toulouse (France), represented by Jean-Pierre                                              munity trade mark
Simon, lawyer.
T.I.M.E.ART ULUSLARARASI SAAT TICARETI VE DI– TICAR-
ET A.–. was also a party to the proceedings before the Board
of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
—     annul the contested decision, delivered by the Third                      Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)
                                                                           (2 ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
      Board of the defendant on 30 January 2003 in Case R
                                                                                1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
      109/2002-3, and the refusal to register the Community                     Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
      figurative trade mark ‘QUANTUM’;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs and the applicant for
      the Community trade mark to pay the costs incurred in
      proceedings before the OHIM.


title: Case C-343/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — SGSS Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v Ministre du budget, des comptes publiques, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/34

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — SGSS Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v Ministre du budget, des comptes publiques, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat
   (Case C-343/11)
   2011/C 269/69
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SGSS Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH

      Defendant: Ministre du budget, des comptes publiques, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the situation of the shareholders be taken into account together with that of undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS)?

               2.

               If so, what are the conditions under which the withholding tax at issue may be regarded as consistent with the principle of free movement of capital?


title: Case T-332/01: Action brought on 27 December 2001 by José María Pujals Gomis against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 44/28                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       16.2.2002
The applicants submit further that the Council and Com-                     —     annul the measure of 22 May 2001 adversely affecting the
mission have not examined the reasons why the Taliban                             applicant and the implied rejection of her administrative
Sanctions Committee included the applicants in its list. Nor                      complaint;
were the applicants given any opportunity to apprise them-
selves of and refute the allegations on which the decision to               —     require the defendant to pay to the applicant 85 % of the
include them in Annex I was based. The applicants have                            cost of surgery on her of BEF 200 234;
thus had onerous sanctions imposed on them without any
opportunity to defend themselves. The fundamental legal                     —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
principle of the right to a fair and equitable hearing has thus
been disregarded.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
Moreover, Regulation (EC) No 2199/2001 is marred by
significant flaws, which points clearly to the need to consider
each individual case separately. At the same time, there are                1.    The applicant challenges the adverse decision of the
good reasons to doubt whether it is appropriate to impose                         Claims Office of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of
sanctions on the applicants.                                                      22 May 2001 relating to meeting the costs of operating
                                                                                on the applicant.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2199/2001 of 12 November
    2001 amending, for the fourth time, Council Regulation (EC)             2.    (a)   Infringement of Articles 24 and 72 of the Staff
    No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services                    Regulations, and of the Rules on sickness insurance
    to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the                      for officials of the European Communities (in par-
    freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the                     ticular of Article 1 and Annexes I and II).
    Taliban of Afghanistan and repealing Regulation (EC)
    No 337/2000 (OJ 2001 L 295, p. 16).                                           (b) Infringment of the principles of good adminstration
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 of 6 March 2001 pro-                            and of transparency.
    hibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan,
    strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and
    other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan,           (c)   Manifest error as to the facts and clear error of
    and repealing Regulation (EC) No 337/2000 (OJ 2001 L 67, p. 1).                     assessment.
                                                                                (d) Inadequate statement of grounds.
Action brought on 17 December 2001 by R against the
         Commission of the European Communities                             Action brought on 27 December 2001 by José Marı́a Pujals
                                                                            Gomis against Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-313/01)
                                                                                (Case T-332/01)
                           (2002/C 44/48)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/49)
                     (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 17 December 2001 by R, a                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Commission official, represented by K. Tagaras, Lawyer, with                European Communities on 27 December 2001 by José
an address for service in Athens.                                           Marı́a Pujals Gomis, residing in Cerdanyola del Vallés (Spain),
                                                                            represented by Javier Pujals Gomis, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     grant the application in its entirety and in respect of all           —     Annul the decision of the selection board for Competition
      its claims;                                                                 COM/B/1/0 of 28 September 2001;
 ---pagebreak--- 16.2.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 44/29
—     In the alternative, annul the present procedure and order                Removal from the Register of Case T-102/99 (1)
      a fresh procedure;
                                                                                (2002/C 44/50)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          By order of 9 November 2001, the President of the Fourth
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
The applicant contests the decision of the selection board for           Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
General Competition COM/B/1/0, organised by the Com-                     Case T-102/99: L v Commission of the European Communi-
mission with a view to constituting a reserve list of assistants         ties.
at Grade B 5/B 4 in the field of customs (1), not to mark the
tests sat by the applicant on 6 July 2001 on the ground that             (1) OJ C 188, 3.7.99.
he did not have sufficient professional experience as required
by Point III.B.2 of the competition notice.
The applicant claims that he has the professional experience
required by the competition notice, as attested when he                         Removal from the Register of Case T-68/01 (1)
submitted his application, and that the contested decision does
not comply with the requirement to give reasons and is                                           (2002/C 44/51)
contrary to the principle of equality of treatment. The applicant
further argues that inviting the candidates to tests and to then                           (Language of the case: German)
check whether the conditions laid down for the competition
have been met amounts to an inadequate procedure which
runs counter to the principles of sound administration and of
legal certainty and deprives those candidates who have been              By order of 5 November 2001, the President of the Second
excluded of their rights of defence.                                     Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                         the Register of Case T-68/01: Huber + Suhner MRS GmbH v
(1) OJ C 24A, p. 22.                                                     Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 212, 28.7.01.


title: Case C-47/99: Action brought on 16 February 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 100/14             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10.4.1999
Action brought on 16 February 1999 by the Commission               Communities on 16 February 1999 by the Commission of
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of             the European Communities, represented by Dimitrios
                         Luxembourg                                Gouloussis, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos
                        (Case C-47/99)                             Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                       (1999/C 100/24)
                                                                   The Commission of the European Communities claims
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                that the Court should:
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 16 February 1999 by the Commission of               Ð declare that, by failing within the prescribed period
the European Communities, represented by Dimitrios                     to adopt, alternatively to communicate to the
Gouloussis, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an                    Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative
address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos              measures necessary in order fully to comply with
Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                            Council Directive 93/104/EEC of 23 November 1993
                                                                       concerning certain aspects of the organisation of
The Commission of the European Communities claims                      working time (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
that the Court should:                                                 has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and
                                                                       under that directive;
Ð declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
    adopt, alternatively to communicate to the                     Ð order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
    Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative               costs.
    measures necessary in order fully to comply with
    Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the
    protection of young persons at work (1), the Grand             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
    Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
    obligations under the EC Treaty and under that
    directive;                                                     Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
                                                                   directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                   upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
Ð order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                   Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
    costs.                                                         down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit
                                                                   in the present case expired on 23 November 1996 without
                                                                   the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg having brought into
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                 force the necessary provisions in order to comply with the
                                                                   directive referred to in the Commission's application.
Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,       (1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.
upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit
in the present case expired on 22 June 1996 without the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg having brought into force
the necessary provisions in order to comply with the
directive referred to in the Commission's application.
                                                                   Appeal brought on 12 February 1999 by Associazione
 1                                                                 Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB), Francesco Coccia and
( ) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 12.
                                                                   Vincenzo Di Giovine against the order made on
                                                                   8 December 1998 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended
                                                                   Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                   European Communities in Case T-38/98 Associazione
                                                                   Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB), Francesco Coccia and
                                                                     Vincenzo Di Giovine v. Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case C-49/99 P)
Action brought on 16 February 1999 by the Commission
of the Europan Communities against the Grand Duchy of                                     (1999/C 100/26)
                         Luxembourg
                        (Case C-48/99)
                                                                   An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of
                       (1999/C 100/25)                             the European Communities on 12 February 1999 by
                                                                   Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB), Francesco
                                                                   Coccia and Vincenzo Di Giovine, represented by Luigi
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                Filippo Paolucci and Gian Piero Galletti, of the Bologna
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the


title: Case C-15/14 P: Appeal brought on 15 January 2014 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 November 2013 in Case T-499/10: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v European Commission

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/6

         Appeal brought on 15 January 2014 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 November 2013 in Case T-499/10: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v European Commission
   (Case C-15/14 P)
   2014/C 61/10
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, K. Talabér-Ritz, agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt.

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 12 November 2013 in Case T-499/10 MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v European Commission; and

               —

               reject the application to annul Commission Decision C(2010) 3553 final of 9 June 2010 in Case C-1/09 (ex NN-69/2008) on the State aid implemented by Hungary in favour of MOL Nyrt (1);

               —

               order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs;
               alternatively,

               —

               refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration;

               —

               reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission maintains that the judgment under appeal should be set aside because several aspects of that judgment misinterpret or misapply the concept of selectivity.
   First, the judgment misapplies the case-law on selectivity in relation to measures for which the national authorities have discretion on the treatment they accord to undertakings.
   Second, the General Court incorrectly states the law in considering that the presence of objective criteria necessarily excludes the presence of selectivity.
   Third, the judgment erroneously links the presence of selectivity to the intention of the Member State to shield one or more operators from a new regime of fees and thereby overlooked the requirement that the presence of State aid rests on the effects of the measure under examination.
   Fourth, the considerations set out in the judgment regarding the ‘subsequent modification of the conditions external to [an agreement preserving a particular level of fees]’ could not be relevant to the case in hand since the subsequent modification of the conditions external to the agreement examined by the Commission was a change in a legislative regime.

      (1)  OJ L 34, p. 55.


No C 269/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14 . 9 . 96
        Removal from the register of Case C-5/96 ( 1 )                       Removal from the register of Case C-413/93 ( )
                           ( 96/C 269/46 )                                                        ( 96/C 269/50 )
By order of 23 May 1996 , the President of the Court of                By order of 19 June 1996 , the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-5/96 : Commission of the                   from the register of Case C-413/93 ( Request for a
European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .                             preliminary ruling from the Pretura circondariale di
                                                                       Trapani ): Criminal proceedings against Matteo Peralta .
(') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 300 , 6 . 11 . 1993 .
      Removal from the register of Case C-387/95 (')
                           ( 96/C 269/47 )                                   Removal from the register of Case C-121 /94 (')
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/51 )
By order of 3 June 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 28 June 1996 , the President of the Court of
register of Case C-387/95 : Commission of the European                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Communities v. Ireland .                                               from the register of Case C-121 /94 ( Request for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht ): Domingo
(') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .                                        Gonzalez-Rodriguez v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-394/95 (')
                            ( 96/C 269/48 )
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-385/95 ( )
By order of 3 June 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice                                   ( 96/C 269/52 )
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-394/95 : Commission of the European                 By order of 28 June 1996 , the President of the Court of
Communities v. Ireland .                                               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-385/95 : Commission of the
(') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .                                        European Communities v. Portuguese Republic .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-40/96 ( )
                            ( 96/C 269/49 )
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-393/95 ( )
 By order of 5 June 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice                                   ( 96/C 269/53 )
 of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-40/96 : Commission of the European                   By order of 9 July 1 996 , the President of the Court of Justice
 Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .                                      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                        register of Case C-393/95 : Commission of the European
 (') OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .                                       Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
                                                                        (>) OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .


title: Case C-330/06: Action brought on 27 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/30

         Action brought on 27 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-330/06)
   (2006/C 224/56)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren, Agent)

      Defendant: Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/86/EC (1) of 8 October 2001 supplementing the Statute for a European company with regard to the involvement of employees, or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 8 October 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 294, P. 22


No C 354/36             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 23 . 11 . 96
   Partial removal from the register of Case T-221/95 ( )            Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                          ( 96/C 354/69 )                            from the register of Case T-37/96 : Luftfartsfunktionsererne
                                                                     v. Commission of the European Communities .
              (Language of the case: English)
                                                                     f 1 ) OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .
By order of 7 October 1996 the President of the Fourth
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Compagnie Luxembourgeoise de
Telediffusion SA, NV Verenigd Bezit VNU, RTL4 SA and
Veronica Omroep Organisatie from the list of applicants in
Case T-221 /95 : Endemol Entertainment Holding BV and
Others v. Commission of the European Communities .                           Removal from the register of Case T-52/96 ( )
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/71 )
(') OJ No C 64 , 2 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
       Removal from the register of Case T-37/96 ( )                 By order of 14 October 1996 the President of the Second
                                                                     Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
                          ( 96/C 354/70 )
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case T-52/96 : Sogecable SA v.
               (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities .
By order of 24 September 1996 the President of the Fourth
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First               (') OJ No C 180 , 22 . 6 . 1996 .


title: Case T-500/07: Order of the General Court of 7 June 2010 — Bulgaria v Commission

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/51

         Order of the General Court of 7 June 2010 — Bulgaria v Commission
   (Case T-500/07) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 209/77
   Language of the case: Bulgarian
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case C-122/11: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 February 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Coordination of social security systems — National rules precluding the indexation, during the period until 1 August 2004 , of pensions of nationals of a Member State which has not concluded a reciprocal agreement or who do not satisfy the condition of residence in the European Union — Residence in a non-member State — Breach of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality — Inadmissible)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/2

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 February 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-122/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Coordination of social security systems - National rules precluding the indexation, during the period until 1 August 2004, of pensions of nationals of a Member State which has not concluded a reciprocal agreement or who do not satisfy the condition of residence in the European Union - Residence in a non-member State - Breach of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality - Inadmissible)
   2013/C 108/03
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Kreushitz and G. Rozet, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck and C. Pochet, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M Mamouna, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 4 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1) and Articles 18 and 45 TFEU — National rules precluding the indexation, for the period until 1 August 2004, of pensions of nationals of a Member State which had not concluded a reciprocal agreement or who do not satisfy the condition of residence in the European Union — Residence in a non-member State — Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality — Lack of justification)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 160, 28.5.2011


title: Joined Cases T-251/05 and T-425/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2007 — Mediocurso v Commission (ESF — training programmes — Reduction in the assistance originally granted — Statement of reasons — Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations — Absence of a manifest error of assessment)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2007 — Mediocurso v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-251/05 and T-425/05) (1)

   (ESF - training programmes - Reduction in the assistance originally granted - Statement of reasons - Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations - Absence of a manifest error of assessment)
   (2007/C 170/44)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Mediocurso — Estabelecimento di Ensino Particular, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by C. Botelho Moniz and E. Maia Cadete, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by P. Andrade and A. Weimar, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Action for the annulment of, first, Commission Decision C(2005) 1236 of 14 April 2005 reducing the assistance granted by Decision C(89) 0570 of 22 March 1989 and, secondly, Commission Decision C(2005) 3557 of 13 September 2005 reducing the assistance granted by Decision C(89) 0570 of 22 March 1989.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-251/05 and T-425/05 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions;

               3.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 3.9.2005.


title: Case C-461/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt — Sweden) — Ulf Kazimierz Radziejewski v Kronofogdemyndigheten i Stockholm (Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45 TFEU — Total or partial debt relief procedure — Debtor who is a natural person — National legislation making the grant of debt relief subject to a residence condition)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/20

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt — Sweden) — Ulf Kazimierz Radziejewski v Kronofogdemyndigheten i Stockholm
   (Case C-461/11) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Total or partial debt relief procedure - Debtor who is a natural person - National legislation making the grant of debt relief subject to a residence condition)
   2013/C 9/31
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Stockholms tingsrätt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ulf Kazimierz Radziejewski

      Defendant: Kronofogdemyndigheten i Stockholm

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Stockholms tingsrätt — Interpretation of Article 45 TFEU — Freedom of movement for persons — Compatibility with Article 45 TFEU of national legislation making the grant of debt relief proceedings in respect of natural persons subject to a condition of residence in national territory — Debtor who is a national of Member State A, resident in Member State B, having made an application for debt relief in Member State A, the place of origin of his debts — Links with the place the application was made

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the grant of debt relief subject to a condition of residence in the Member State concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.


14.9.2002            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 219/25
principle patere legem quem ipse fecisti and breach of the                    Removal from the register of Case T-124/00 (1)
principle of non-discrimination. According to the applicant,
the European Parliament was required to allow her access to                                   (2002/C 219/57)
her corrected written paper and to the criteria on which the
Board assessed it.                                                                       (Language of the Case: Italian)
The applicant further alleges infringement of the competition         By order of 21 June 2002 the President of the Second Chamber
notice and a manifest error of assessment. In her view, the           of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Selection Board laid down for itself too strict a set of criteria     ordered the removal from the register of Case T-124/00:
against which to assess the test.                                     Federazione Associazioni Imprese Distribuzione and Others v
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.


title: Case C-504/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia)) — Tanoarch s.r.o. v Daňové riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky (Taxation — VAT — Right of deduction — Assignment of a share in the rights relating to an invention, held by a number of undertakings, to an undertaking which has the right to use that invention in its entirety — Abusive practice)

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/15

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia)) — Tanoarch s.r.o. v Daňové riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky
   (Case C-504/10) (1)

   (Taxation - VAT - Right of deduction - Assignment of a share in the rights relating to an invention, held by a number of undertakings, to an undertaking which has the right to use that invention in its entirety - Abusive practice)
   2011/C 370/23
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tanoarch s.r.o.

      Defendant: Daňové riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Interpretation of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof — Transfer of some of the rights over an invention, held by various undertakings, to an undertaking already having the right to use the said invention in its entirety — Possible existence of a right to deduct input tax

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A taxpayer may, in principle, claim a right of deduction of input VAT paid or payable for the supply of a service, carried out for consideration, where the applicable national law permits the assignment of a share of the co-ownership of an invention which confers rights relating to the invention.

               2.

               It is for the referring court to establish, taking into account all the factual circumstances characterising the supply of the service in the case in the main proceedings, whether or not there has been an abuse of rights with regard to the right of deduction of input VAT.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.


title: Case T-397/11: Order of the General Court of 26 January 2012 — Symfiliosi v FRA

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/26

         Order of the General Court of 26 January 2012 — Symfiliosi v FRA
   (Case T-397/11) (1)

   2012/C 80/48
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Action brought on 22 May 1996 by W against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-78/96)

text:
No C 233/ 12          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10 . 8 . 96
Action brought on 17 May 1996 by Georges Tzoanos                      responsibility, in that he was involved only in the selection
   against the Commission of the European Communities                 and technical control of subsidized projects and not in
                                                                      financial control . The Commission's decision was therefore
                        ( Case T-74/96
                                                                      totally irrelevant both in fact and in law and infringed
                          ( 96/C 233 /22 )
                                                                      Article 21 of the Staff Regulations , which required that the
                                                                      applicant should be held responsible only for tasks entrusted
                                                                      to him .
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      Finally, the applicant considers that the disciplinary
                                                                      procedure was conducted in such a way that he was not able
An action against the Commission of the European                      properly to defend himself, particularly by reason of the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     manner in which the hearings were conducted , the
Instance of the European Communities on 17 May 1996 by                documents collated and the questions put, but also by
Georges Tzoanos, residing in Brussels , represented by Eric           reason of the very personality of the officials participating at
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in         various stages of the disciplinary proceedings , especially the
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du                 hearings , and by reason of the existence of parallel criminal
Fort Rheinsheim .                                                     proceedings . Moreover, the multitude of obvious
                                                                      inaccuracies which riddled these proceedings led the
                                                                      Commission to hold against him a series of alleged
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          irregularities that did not in fact exist, and to impose an
                                                                      obviously disproportionate sanction . In the light of the
                                                                      above , the applicant pleads infringement of Articles 86 and
— annul the decision of 22 June 1995 , taking effect on               88 of, and Annex IX to , the Staff Regulations, disregard of
     1 August 1995 and notified on 23 June 1995 , whereby             defence rights and the principle of proportionality, excess of
     the Commission decided to impose on the applicant the            authority and misuse of powers .
     disciplinary sanction in Article 86 ( 2 ) ( f) of the Staff
     Regulations, namely removal from his post without
     reduction or withdrawal of entitlement to retirement
     pension ,
— annul the express rejection of 19 February 1996 of the
     applicant's complaint against the contested decision             Action brought on 22 May 1996 by W against the
     lodged on 21 September 1995 under No R780/95 ,                            Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                Case T-78/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 233/23 )
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
The applicant argues, first, that, contrary to what is stated in      Communities was brought before the Court of First
the reasoning for the contested decision , he has not in any          Instance of the European Communities on 22 May 199 6 by
way compromised his independence or integrity and that,              W, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi ,
furthermore, he was not in a position in which he would be            of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
likely to make applications or declarations to the                    Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue
                                                                      Glesener .
Commission , or supply it with information, preliminary or
otherwise . He maintains that the Commission's allegations
against him are either not established, or are established to        The applicant claims that the Court should :
such an insignificant extent that the requirements of the
Staff Regulations are not fulfilled , and adds that he has
committed no fault to justify either the contested decision or       — annul the decision of 20 July 1995 compulsorily
its severity . In his opinion , the contested decision was                ' reassigning' her to another post and , in so far as
adopted on the basis of an incorrect assessment of the facts ,            necessary, annul the decision rejecting her complaint,
thereby infringing Articles 12 , 13 and 14 of the Staff                   taken on 22 February 1996 and notified on 28 February
                                                                          1996 ,
Regulations of officials .
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
Concerning the allegations of administrative irregularities
and budgetary and financial mismanagement during the
exercise of his duties as head of the 'Tourism ' unit, the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
applicant maintains that the Commission imputes
responsibility to him in respect of duties that were not             The applicant, an official assigned to the Publications
entrusted to him and were not within his area of                     Office , challenges the decision of the appointing authority
 ---pagebreak--- 10 . 8 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 233/ 13
compulsorily 'reassigning' her from her post in OP/DIR,               The applicant claims that the Court should :
External Staff Administration , to post OP/4 , Group A
' Publications '.
                                                                      — declare , in accordance with Article 175 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                          that the Commission has infringed Article 30 of
First, the post she had previously occupied became vacant                 Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 and the second
following her departure and, secondly, the new post had                   subparagraph of Article 40 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty, by
been vacant before the so-called ' reassignment'. She could               failing to take the steps necessary to enable the applicant
not therefore have been transferred with her post, so that the            to overcome the following difficulties :
contested measure was incorrectly described by the
defendant as a reassignment.                                              — on account of the crisis in Somalia , it is impossible to
                                                                               procure sufficient quantities of Somalian bananas to
The applicant points out in particular the manner in which                     meet traditional marketing needs , and
the contested decision prejudices her career prospects
inasmuch as , first, the duties attaching to the post to which            — by virtue of the restrictions imposed by Council
she has been reassigned are clearly beneath her abilities,                     Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 , it is impossible to use
qualifications and duties previously performed and ,                           bananas from other sources,
secondly, the reassignment in question appears to be a
disguised disciplinary measure imposed on the applicant on            — declare that the Commission is under a duty to take
account of the allegedly bad relations with her immediate                 adequate measures for the future ,
superior.
                                                                      — order the Commission to pay compensation , pursuant to
The applicant claims in this respect that Articles 4 and 29 of
                                                                          Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of
the Staff Regulations have been infinged inasmuch as any
                                                                          the EC Treaty, for the damage suffered by the applicant
transfer properly so called must observe the formalities                  as a result of the Commission's failure to act,
provided for in those two provisions which , as stated above ,
was not the case here .
                                                                      — order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
Secondly, the applicant complains that the appointing                     applicant in the present proceedings .
authority disregarded Article 7 of the Staff Regulations
inasmuch as the ' reassignment', which is the subject of the
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
dispute, was effected neither in the interest of the service nor
in observance of equivalence between posts . The quality of
the work of the applicant has never been criticized . On the          Camar, the only Community operator which traditionally
contrary, her sense of responsibility and initiative , her            trades in Somalian bananas , complains that the Commission
efficiency and her competence have been acknowledged in               failed to adopt the measures provided for under Article 30 of
her staff reports .                                                   Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 in order to enable it to
                                                                      overcome the difficulties in obtaining supplies of bananas as
                                                                      a result of the critical situation in Somalia and the
Finally, the applicant claims that the duty to have regard for
her welfare as an official has been breached and that there           restrictions imposed by Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 .
has been a misuse of powers .
                                                                      Camar emphasizes that before the common organization of
                                                                      the market in bananas took effect, it was able to offset a
                                                                      shortfall in Somalian bananas with bananas from other ACP
                                                                      countries or from third countries . Thereafter, however, that
                                                                      was no longer possible , because bananas from both ACP
                                                                      states and non-ACP third countries are subject to quotas
Action brought on 24 May 1996 by Camar SRL against the                and, in the latter case, without reference quantities it is
          Commission of the European Communities                      impossible to obtain licences giving access to the quota .
                         ( Case T-79/96
                           ( 96/C 233/24 )                            According to Camar, although the lack of Somalian bananas
                                                                      on account of the war and the subsequent continuing crisis is
                                                                      outside the Commission's control , that institution is
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                     nevertheless accountable for not having taken cognizance of
                                                                      the fact that Community supplies were depleted by the
An action against the Commission of the European                      60 000 tonnes designated in the Annex to Regulation ( EEC )
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                    No 404/93 as traditional quantities , which the Council took
 Instance of the European Communities on 24 May 1996 by               into account when fixing the tariff quota for third-country
 Camar SRL, a company established in Florence ( Italy ),              and non-traditional ACP bananas, and for not having
 represented by Wilma Viscardini Donà , and assisted by Dr            adopted appropriate measures to compensate for that
                                                                      shortfall .
 Mariano Paolin and Dr . Simonetta Donà , all of the Padua
 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt,                  According to Camar, it is clear from the various recitals in
 BP 39 .                                                              the preambles to the regulations adopted by the


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 17 June 1997, in the case of The Queen against (1) Secretary of State for the Environment (2) Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, ex parte: (1) H. A. Standley and Others (2) D. G. D. Metson and Others, Intervener: National Farmers' Union (Case C-293/97)

text:
C 295/24               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27 . 9 . 97
     may be accepted that the act by which the President                   who — for reasons outside their control — have not
     appoints a doctor to represent the applicant on the                   delivered milk throughout the necessary qualification
     Committee is itself an administrative act, the acts                   period for the award of quota (1 March 1994 to
     which precede it or directly follow from it must                      1 January 1995 ) are refused a quota ?
     involve full consultation of the other party.
     Consequently, the Commission was under an
     obligation to inform the applicant of its decision to           (') OJ L 405 , 31 . 12 . 1992, p . 40.
     refer the matter to the President of the Court of
     Justice. Once that appointment had taken place, the
     Commission was also obliged to communicate a copy
     of the appointment order made by the President of the
     Court of Justice.
— Infringement of the first paragraph of Article 9 of                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional
     Annex II to the Staff Regulations of Officials: the             Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
     Court of First Instance wrongly considered that the             17 June 1997, in the case of The Queen against
     applicant was in a position to exercise the rights              ( 1 ) Secretary of State for the Environment (2 ) Minister of
     conferred on her by that provision.                             Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, ex parte: ( 1 ) H. A.
                                                                     Standley and Others (2 ) D. G. D. Metson and Others,
                                                                                Intervener: National Farmers ' Union
                                                                                ( Case C-293/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 295/42 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsratt
by order of that court of 23 July 1997 in the case brought
    by Kjell Karlsson and Others against Jordbruksverket
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                         (Case C-292/97)                             European Communities by an order of the Divisional
                          ( 97/C 295/41 )                            Court, Queen's Bench Division, of 17 June 1997, which
                                                                     was received at the Court Registry on 11 August 1997, for
                                                                     a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               ( 1 ) Secretary of State for the Environment ( 2 ) Minister of
European Communities by order of the Regeringsratt                   Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, ex parte: ( 1 ) H. A.
(Supreme Administrative Court) of 23 July 1997, which                Standley and Others ( 2 ) D. G. D. Metson and Others,
was received at the Court Registry on 8 August 1997, for             Intervener: National Farmers' Union, on the following
a preliminary ruling in the case brought by Kjell Karlsson           questions:
and Others against Jordbruksverket on the following
questions:
                                                                      1 . Does Council Directive 91 /676/EEC (*) of 12 December
Do Council Regulation ( EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December                      1991 concerning the protection of waters against
1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk                  pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
products sector ('), Articles 5 and 40 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty              ('the Nitrates Directive') require Member States, in
and the fundamental Community law principle of equal                       accordance, in particular, with Articles 2 (j ) and 3 ( 1 )
treatment permit national provisions of a State which                      and Annex I thereof, to identify surface freshwaters as
acceded to the Union on 1 January 1995 under which:                        'waters affected by pollution', and then to designate as
                                                                           vulnerable zones in accordance with Article 3 (2 )
                                                                           thereof all known areas of land which drain into such
1 . for producers who have not altered their production,                   waters and which contribute to pollution:
      average deliveries in 1991 , 1992 and 1993 are adopted
      as the basis for the award of a milk quota,
                                                                            (i)  where those waters contain a concentration of
2. producers who have commenced or increased                                     nitrates in excess of 50 mg/1 ( being the
      production of milk between 1 January 1991 and                              concentration of nitrates laid down by Annex I to
      31 December 1994 must accept a reduction in milk                           the Nitrates Directive, by reference to Directive
      quota, unlike milk producers whose production                              75/440/EEC (2) and the Member State is satisfied
      circumstances have not altered in that period and                          that the discharge of nitrogen compounds
      producers of ecologically produced milk, and that                          from agricultural sources makes a 'significant
                                                                                contribution' to this overall concentration of
      reduction is determined differently for producers who
      have commenced production than for those who have                          nitrates and, if so, is a Member State entitled to
                                                                                be so satisfied if it has reason to believe that the
      increased production,
                                                                                contribution to this overall concentration of
                                                                                nitrates, of nitrogen compounds discharged from
 3 . producers who delivered milk before the State's                             agricultural sources, is greater than de minimis or
      accession to the Community's milk quota system but                         some other amount or degree of contribution,
 ---pagebreak--- 27 . 9 . 97                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 295/25
               and if the latter, what amount or degree                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
               of contribution amounts to a 'significant                   Genova by order of 29 July 1997 in the case of Industrie
               contribution' for these purposes; or                        Aeronautiche e Meccaniche Rinaldo Piaggio v.
                                                                           ( 1 ) International Factors Italia SpA — Uhi 1ALIA;
       ( ii ) only where the discharge of nitrogen compounds               (2 ) Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH (Wessling — Germany); and
               from agricultural sources itself accounts for a                                 (3 ) Ministero della Difesa
               concentration of nitrates in those waters in excess                                   ( Case C-295/97)
               of 50 mg/1 ( i.e. leaving out of account any
               contribution from other sources); or                                                      97/C 295/44 )
       ( iii ) on some other basis and, if so, what basis ?                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of 29 July 1997 from the
2. If Question 1 is answered otherwise than in sense ( ii )                Tribunale di Genova ( District Court, Genoa), Sixth Civil
       above, is the Nitrates Directive invalid (to the extent             Chamber, which was received at the Court Registry on
       of its application to surface freshwaters ) on the                  11 August 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
       grounds that it infringes:                                          Industrie Aeronautiche e Meccaniche Rinaldo Piaggio v.
                                                                           ( 1 ) International Factors Italia SpA — IFITALIA;
                                                                           (2 ) Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH (Wessling — Germany); and
       (i)     the principle that the polluter should pay; and/or          ( 3 ) Ministero della Difesa on the following questions:
       ( ii ) the principle of proportionality; and/or
                                                                           1 . Can a national court request the Court of Justice of
                                                                                the European Communities to rule directly on whether
       (iii ) the fundamental property rights of those owning                    a legislative provision of a Member State is compatible
               and/or farming land draining into surface
                                                                                with the provisions of Article 92 of the Treaty ( State
               freshwaters required to be identified under                       aid)?
               Article 3 ( 1 ), being areas of land which are then
               designated by Member States as vulnerable zones
               under Article 3 ( 2 )?                                      2 . If the answer is in the affirmative: can it be argued
                                                                                that, by Law No 26 of 3 April 1979 establishing
(•) OJ L 375 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 1 .                                           a special administration procedure for large
( 2 ) Council Directive of 16 June 1975 concerning the quality                   undertakings in a state of crisis, and in particular by
      required of surface water intended for the abstraction of                  the provisions of that Law set out in the grounds of
      drinking water in the Member States ( OJ L 194, 25 . 7. 1995,              the present order, the Italian State has granted to such
      p. 26 ).                                                                   undertakings as are covered by that Law (that is to
                                                                                say, large undertakings ) aid contrary to Article 92 of
                                                                                the Treaty ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Munster by order of that court of 28 July 1997 in the case
of Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG v. Finanzamt Dortmund                                   Removal from the register of C-407/95 (*)
                                     Unna
                                                                                97/C 295/45 )
                              ( Case C-294/97
                                ( 97/C 295/43 )                             By order of 13 May 1997 the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                            removal from the register of Case C-407/95: Kingdom of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Belgium v. Commission of the European Communities,
European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht                       supported by French Republic and United Kingdom of
 (Finance Court), Munster (Ninth Chamber), of 28 July                       Great Britain and Northern Ireland .
 1997, which was received at the Court Registry on
 11 August 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                    O OJ C 46, 17. 2 . 1996 .
Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG v. Finanzamt (Tax Office),
Dortmund-Unna, on the following question:
 Are the 'add-back' provisions in the second sentence of
 paragraph 8 ( 7) and the second sentence of paragraph 12
 (2 ) (2 ) of the Gewerbesteuergesetz ( Business Tax Law)                              Removal from the register of C-58/96 (')
 compatible with the principle of freedom to provide
 services under Article 59 of the Treaty on European Union                                              ( 97/C 295/46 )
 of 7 February 1992 ?
                                                                            By order of 13 May 1997 the President of the Court of
                                                                            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the


title: Case C-550/12 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — J v European Parliament (Article 227 TFEU — Right of petition — Petition addressed to the European Parliament — Decision to take no further action — Subject not falling within an area of activity of the European Union)

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/5

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — J v European Parliament
   (Case C-550/12 P) (1)

   ((Article 227 TFEU - Right of petition - Petition addressed to the European Parliament - Decision to take no further action - Subject not falling within an area of activity of the European Union))
   2014/C 102/05
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: J (represented by: A. Auer, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and N. Görlitz, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 in Case T-160/10 J v Parliament, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by Mr J seeking annulment of the decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 2 March 2010 to shelve the appellant’s petition of 19 November 2009 (petition No 1673/2009) without taking any further action — Lack of reasoning — Infringement of fundamental rights.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The application for legal aid is dismissed.

               3.

               J shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 September 2005 in Case C-427/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/16/EC — Trans-European networks — Interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system — Failure to implement)

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 8 September 2005
   in Case C-427/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/16/EC - Trans-European networks - Interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system - Failure to implement)
   (2005/C 271/17)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-427/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Wils and G. Zavvos) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: N. Dafniou) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to comply with obligations, brought on 5 October 2004 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, M. Ilešič and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6 of 08.01.2005


title: Case C-42/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van beroep voor het bedrĳfsleven by order of that Court of 23 January 2004 in the case of Maatschap J.B. en R.A.M. Elshof against the Minister for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality

text:
C 85/16                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         3.4.2004
      (c)   whether, and if so to what extent, the provisions of            (Federal Finance Court) of 27 November 2003, received at the
            § 40 of the Työturvallisuuslaki mentioned in point              Court Registry on 4 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in
            10 above conflict with Community law, having                    the case of Finanzamt Arnsberg against Stadt Sundern on the
            regard to the consequences as regards criminal law              following questions:
            and the law on compensation, described in points 12
            to 15 above, which derive from failure to comply                1.    May or must the Member States which have incorporated
            with them.                                                            into their domestic law the common flat-rate scheme for
                                                                                farmers provided for in Article 25 of Directive 77/388/
(1) Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                                EEC (1) ultimately exempt flat-rate farmers from payment
    of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member                of turnover tax?
    States relating to machinery (OJ L 207 of 23.7.1998, p. 1).
                                                                            2.    If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is that the
                                                                                case only for supplies of agricultural products and for
                                                                                agricultural services or also for other transactions of a
                                                                                flat-rate farmer, or are the other transactions subject to
                                                                                the general scheme under Directive 77/388/EEC?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van                             What are the consequences for the grant of a hunting
beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that Court of                           licence by a flat-rate farmer?
23 January 2004 in the case of Maatschap J.B. en R.A.M.
Elshof against the Minister for Agriculture, Nature and
                            Food Quality                                    (1) OJ L 145, p. 1.
                           (Case C-42/04)
                          (2004/C 85/26)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
European Communities by order of the College van beroep                     Gorizia by order of that Court of 18 December 2003,
voor het bedrijfsleven of 23 January 2004, received at the                  nos. 1259/2003 and 1260/2003, in the proceedings pend-
Court Registry on 3 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in              ing between Azienda Agricola Bogar Roberto & Andrea
the case of Maatschap J.B. en R.A.M. Elshof against the Minister                                        and AGEA
for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality on the following
question:
                                                                                (Case C-44/04 and C-45/04)
Does the term ‘batch’ in Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No
1046/2001 (1) have the same meaning as the term ‘load’ in                                             (2004/C 85/28)
point 1 of Annex II to that regulation or must the term ‘batch’
be taken to mean all the animals which are delivered for
rendering by a holding on one day or pursuant to one decision
to purchase?                                                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Gorizia
                                                                            (Italy) of 18 December 2003, received at the Court Registry on
(1) OJ L 145 of 31 May 2001, p. 31.
                                                                            4 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                            pending between Azienda Agricola Bogar Roberto & Andrea
                                                                            and AGEA on the following questions:
                                                                            Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1) of 31 March
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                     1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 (2) of
hof by order of that Court of 27 November 2003 in the                       28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the
     case of Finanzamt Arnsberg against Stadt Sundern                       additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of
                                                                            an administrative penalty with the result that producers are
                                                                            liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been
                           (Case C-43/04)                                   exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?
                          (2004/C 85/27)
                                                                            (1) OJ L 90 of 1.4.1984, p. 10.
                                                                            (2) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof


title: Case T-394/03: Action brought on 8 December 2003 by Flavia Angeletti against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 47/28               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         21.2.2004
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 European Communities on 8 December 2003 by Flavia
                                                                           Angeletti, residing in Nice (France), represented by Juan Ramón
                      of 15 October 2003                                   Iturriagagoitia and Karine Delvolvé, lawyers.
in Case T-288/02: Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) v
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
(Action for annulment — Decision to conclude a research
                  contract — Inadmissibility)
                                                                           —     annul the medical findings of 22 February 2003, notified
                         (2004/C 47/55)                                          on 7 October 2003 and received on 14 October 2003 by
                                                                                Flavia Angeletti;
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the Commission of 7 October
                                                                                2003, received on 14 October 2003, refusing to recognise
In Case T-288/02 Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), estab-                     the occupational origin of the applicant’s medical com-
lished in Pathumthani (Thailand), represented by H Teissier du                   plaint;
Cros, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
against the Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: P. Kuijper and B Schöfer) — application for the
annulment of the decision of the European Commission of                    —     annul the decision of the Commission of 17 October
22 February 2002 to conclude a research contract within the                      2003, corrected by letter of 27 October 2003, charging
framework of the ‘Asia-Invest’ programme with the Centre for                     to the applicant part of the fees and expenses charged by
Energy-Environment Research and Development — the Court                          members of the medical committee;
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh,
President, R García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, made an order on 15 October 2003, the operative                 —     annul the mandate of the medical committee, communi-
part of which is as follows:                                                     cated to the applicant on 18 April 2003, as a preparatory
                                                                                act;
(1) The action is dismissed as clearly inadmissible.
(2) The parties are ordered to bear their own costs in the main            —     annul the letter of 5 May 2003 containing a refusal to
     proceedings and in the proceedings for interim relief.                      allow the forwarding to the medical committee of a scan
                                                                                carried out on 21 February 2003, as a preparatory act;
(1) OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.
                                                                           —     annul the decision of 30 January 2001, and uphold the
                                                                                request of the applicant made by way of her complaint of
                                                                                4 September 2000, and the opinion of the medical
                                                                                committee of 5 November 1999;
Action brought on 8 December 2003 by Flavia Angeletti
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       —     order the Commission to pay the fees and expenses of
                                                                                the medical committee in full;
                        (Case T-394/03)
                         (2004/C 47/56)                                    —     order the Commission to pay, in their entirety, the fees
                                                                                and expenses incurred by the applicant in the context of
                                                                                the irregular opinion of the medical committee and of
                   (Language of the case: French)                                the decision of the institution taken on the basis thereof,
                                                                                together with interest thereon;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.2.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 47/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     so far as necessary, also annul the decisions against which
                                                                                the complaint was brought, namely:
The applicant, a former official of the Commission, worked
for several years in the Berlaymont building which was at the                   —     the decision of the Commission mpt to take any
time contaminated with asbestos. In 1996, the applicant                               steps to rectify any errors in counting committed
sought recognition of her illness as an occupational disease                          during the 2002 staff committee elections to elect
and, in 1998, she requested that a medical committee be                               the Brussels local staff committee;
consulted in accordance with Article 21 of the Rules on
Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities.                   —     the decision communicated on 10 January 2003 by
That medial committee initially adopted a majority opinion in                         the chairperson of the electoral bureau, following
2000 but, following a complaint from the applicant, the                               two requests submitted by the applicant, dated
defendant decided to refer the matter back to it. By letter of                        23 December 2002;
7 October 2003, the Commission informed the applicant that
the medical committee had lodged its opinion. By the same                 —     order the Commission to pay EUR 29 635 by way of
letter, the Commission informed the applicant that it con-                      damages;
firmed its decision not to recognise the applicant’s medical
complaint as being occupational in origin. By letters of 17 and           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
27 October 2003, the Commission charged to the applicant
part of the fees and expenses of the members of the medical
committee.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of her claims, the applicant alleges irregularity of
the opinion of the medical committee and of the decisions and
acts relating thereto, breach of the duty to have regard for the          In support of his application, the applicant alleges manifest
welfare of officials as regards the decision concerning the fees          error of assessment, breach of the duty to have regard for the
and expenses, breach of the principle of sound administration,            welfare of officials and of the principle of sound administration
misuse of powers and breach of legitimate expectations.                   and infringement of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff
                                                                          Regulations.
Action brought on 10 December 2003 by Joseph Vanhel-
lemont against the Commission of the European Com-
                             munities
                                                                          Action brought on 10 December 2003 by the Fédération
                                                                          de l’Hospitalisation Privée (‘FHP’) against the Commission
                         (Case T-396/03)                                                   of the European Communities
                          (2004/C 47/57)
                                                                                (Case T-397/03)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/58)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                     (Language of the case: French)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 December 2003 by Joseph
Vanhellemont, residing in Brussels, represented by Lucas
Vogel, lawyer.                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               European Communities on 10 December 2003 by the Fédér-
                                                                          ation de l’Hospitalisation Privée (‘FHP’), established in Paris,
—     annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority              represented by Silvestre Tandeau de Marsac, avocat.
      on 26 August 2003 and notified on 5 September 2003,
      rejecting the complaint made by the applicant on 1 April
      2003 seeking the annulment of a decision of the chairper-           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      son of the electoral bureau of 10 January 2003 who, after
      two requests of 23 December 2002, refused to recount                —     Declare that the Commission of the European Communi-
      the votes cast in the elections for the Brussels local staff              ties has failed to act with regard to the complaint filed
      committee, held between the 2 and 14 December 2002,                       under number A/40342-H3;