title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greek Council of State), by a decision of that court of 6 April 1998 in the case of Kharalambos Dounias v. Minister for Finance (Case C-228/98)

text:
C 278/16              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    5.9.98
Action brought on 25 June 1998 by the Commission of                   Court Registry on 26 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling
         the European Communities against Ireland                     in the case of Kharalambos Dounias v. Minister for
                       (Case C-227/98)                                Finance on the following questions:
                         (98/C 278/25)
                                                                      1. Is the method set out in Law 1477/1984, in particular
                                                                          Articles 1(2), 2(3), 3(3) and 4(3) thereof, and
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                 Article 16 of Law 1642/1986 for calculating taxable
Justice of the European Communities on 25 June 1998 by                    value for the purposes of the taxes laid down by those
the Commission of the European Communities,                               Laws contrary to the provisions governing the
represented by Frank Benyon, its Legal Adviser acting as                  European Economic Community, in particular
agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr                    Articles 30 and 95 of the Treaty of Rome?
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal Service,
Centre Wagner, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
                                                                      2. Is Council Regulation (EEC) No 1224/80 (1) also
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               directly applicable where a tax provided for under the
                                                                          legislation of a Member State applies to goods
                                                                          imported from another Member State?
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
    or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
    Council Directive 91/328/EEC of 21 June 1991
                                                                      3. If the answer to the preceding question is in the
    amending Directive 77/143/EEC on the approximation
                                                                          affirmative, is Article 11 of that Regulation contrary
    of laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                          to the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and in
    roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their
                                                                          particular Article 30 thereof?
    trailers (1), as repealed by Directive 96/96/EC of
    20 December 1996 (2) but which maintained in force
    the obligations of the Member States concerning the
                                                                      4. If the answer to question 2 is in the negative, is the
    deadline for transposition set out in Directive 91/328/
                                                                          reference in the abovementioned provisions of Laws
    EEC and/or by failing to inform the Commission
                                                                          1477/1984 and 1642/1986 to Council Regulation
    thereof, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                          (EEC) No 1224/80 contrary to the provisions of the
    that Directive,
                                                                          Treaty of Rome and in particular Article 30 thereof?
Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                      5. If the answer to question 2 is in the negative, is
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Article 16 of the Code of Legislation relating to the
                                                                          Customs Tariff (Codifying Decree of 25/30 July 1920),
                                                                          as replaced by Article 1 of Law 428/1943, contrary to
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall               the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and in particular
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                    Article 30 thereof?
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
down in the directive. That period expired on 1 July 1993             6. Is the administrative procedure for settling disputes
without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary to                provided for in Article 10 of the abovementioned
comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of               Code of Legislation relating to the Customs Tariff and
the Commission.                                                           Article 136 of Presidential Decree 636/1977 contrary
                                                                          to the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and in
(1) OJ L 178, 6.7.1991, p. 29.                                            particular Article 30 thereof, where a domestic tax is
(2) OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 1.                                             levied on goods imported from another Member State?
                                                                      7. Are the provisions of Article 50 of Presidential Decree
                                                                          341/1978, in conjunction with Article 152 of the Code
                                                                          of Fiscal Procedure and Article 4 of Law 1406/1983,
                                                                          contrary to the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis
                                                                          in particular Article 30 thereof, where proceedings are
Epikratias (Greek Council of State), by a decision of that
                                                                          brought before an administrative court seeking to
court of 6 April 1998 in the case of Kharalambos Dounias
                                                                          establish the liability of the State with a view to
                    v. Minister for Finance
                                                                          obtaining reparation for damage resulting from the
                       (Case C-228/98)                                    infringement of provisions governing the European
                         (98/C 278/26)                                    Economic Community?
                                                                      (1) OJ L 134, 31.5.1980, p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a decision of the Simvoulio tis
Epikratias (First Chamber), which was received at the


title: Case C-32/02: Action brought on 5 February 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
6.4.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 84/51
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                   —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of 16 January 2002
in the appeals concerning Dr Roman Moser, the Bürger-
meister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg, and the land
            transfer agent of the Land of Salzburg                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (Case C-15/02)
                                                                         The Commission claims that Directive 98/59 applies to
                                                                         collective redundancies carried out by any ‘employer’, that is
                         (2002/C 84/89)                                  by any natural or legal person who has created an employment
                                                                         relationship, regardless of whether he is engaged in profit-
                                                                         making activities. It follows, therefore, that the implementing
                                                                         Italian regulations, and in particular Law No 223/91, which
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   restricts the application of the guarantees to employees of
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-                ‘undertakings’ alone, wrongfully exclude all employers engaged
tungssenat Salzburg (Independent Administrative Chamber,                 in non-profit-making activities.
Salzburg) of 16 January 2002, received at the Court Registry
on 22 January 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the appeals
concerning Dr Roman Moser, the Bürgermeister der Lande-
shauptstadt Salzburg, and the land transfer agent of the Land
of Salzburg on the following question:
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be          Action brought on 6 February 2002 by the Commission
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12, 36           of the European Communities against the Republic of
and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land                                             Austria
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.
No. 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply                                           (Case C-33/02)
with a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the                                      (2002/C 84/91)
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
case?
                                                                         An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                         on 6 February 2002 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its
                                                                         Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                         the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, at
Action brought on 5 February 2002 by the Commission                      Centre Wagner C 254, Kirchberg.
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-32/02)
                                                                         —     declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
                         (2002/C 84/90)                                        obligations under Article 3(3) and (4), Article 7(1) and
                                                                               (2), Article 11(3), and Article 13(1) in conjunction
                                                                               with Article 2(3) of Council Directive 94/67/EC of
                                                                               16 December 1994 on the incineration of hazardous
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                  waste, by
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 February
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                            1.    incorrectly transposing, in Paragraph 3 no. 3.2 and
represented by A. Aresu acting as Agent.                                             no. 3.3 of the Verordnung des Bundesministers für
                                                                                wirtschaftliche Angelegenheiten über die Verbren-
                                                                                nung gefährlicher Abfälle in gewerblichen Betrieb-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                          sanlagen (Regulation of the Federal Minister for
                                                                                Economic Affairs on the incineration of hazardous
—     Declare that, by not adopting provisions in respect of                         waste in commercial plants) (the ‘BMwA Regu-
      employers engaged in non-profit-making activities, the                         lation’), the rule in Article 3(3) of the directive that
      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                    the heat release from coincineration may not exceed
      Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the                              40 % of the total heat, in respect of ‘the total
      approximation of the laws of the Member States relating                        heat released in the plant at each moment of its
      to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16);                             operation’;


title: Case C-316/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen by order of that court of 9 August 2005 in Nokia Corporation v Joacim Wärdell

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen by order of that court of 9 August 2005 in Nokia Corporation v Joacim Wärdell
   (Case C-316/05)
   (2005/C 257/07)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Högsta Domstolen (Supreme Court) of 9 August 2005, received at the Court Registry on 16 August 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Nokia Corporation and Joacim Wärdell on the following questions:

               1.

               Is the condition relating to special reasons in the first sentence of Article 98(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark to be interpreted as meaning that a court which finds that the defendant has infringed a Community trade mark may, irrespective of the other circumstances, refrain from issuing a specific prohibition of further infringement if the court considers that the risk of further infringement is not obvious or is otherwise merely limited?

               2.

               Is the condition relating to special reasons in the first sentence of Article 98(1) of the Regulation on the Community trade mark to be interpreted as meaning that a court which finds that the defendant has infringed a Community trade mark may, even if there is no such ground for refraining from issuing a prohibition of further infringement as contemplated in Question 1, refrain from issuing such a prohibition on the grounds that it is clear that a further infringement is covered by a statutory general prohibition of infringement under national law and that a penalty may be imposed on the defendant if he commits a further infringement intentionally or with gross negligence?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is no, must specific measures, by which a prohibition is for example coupled with a penalty, be taken in such a case to ensure that the prohibition is complied with, even where it is clear that a further infringement is covered by a statutory general prohibition of infringement under national law and that a penalty may be imposed on the defendant if he commits a further infringement intentionally or with gross negligence?

               4.

               If the answer to Question 3 is yes, does this apply even where the conditions for adopting such a specific measure in the case of a corresponding infringement of a national trade mark would not be regarded as fulfilled?


title: Case C-503/06: Action brought on 13 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/12

         Action brought on 13 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-503/06)
   (2007/C 82/23)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia, Agent)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, since the Regione Liguria has adopted and applies rules concerning authorisation to derogate from the system of protection for wild birds which fail to satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC (1), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of that directive.

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Following receipt of a complaint, the Commission was apprised of the fact that the Regione Liguria had approved Law No 34 of October 2001 for the purpose of regulating procedures for the adoption of derogations from the system of protection for wild birds provided for under Article 9 of the abovementioned directive. That regional law was amended by Regional Law No 31 of 13 August 2002.
   In the Commission's opinion, Regional Law No 34/2001, as amended, authorises the lawful hunting of bird species protected under that directive in so far it:

               —

               identifies generally and in the abstract and without any time limitation the species which are subject to the derogation, whereas the derogation constitutes an exceptional regulatory measure to be adopted upon verification that certain conditions of a scientific nature are met;

               —

               does not lay down an obligation, as regards individual derogation measures, to state one of the abstract reasons why it is possible to grant a derogation under Article 9 of the directive and does not lay down an obligation to explain the practical reason why a particular measure is dictated by the need relied upon as an abstract reason.

               —

               it fails to provide that checks are to be made to ensure that no other satisfactory solutions are available or to provide any indication of the authority empowered to declare that the conditions under Article 9 of the directive are satisfied.

         The fact that Regional Law No 34/2001, as amended, is incompatible with the directive is reflected in the specific measures authorising hunting, which fail to establish that no other satisfactory solutions are available and fail to mention either the abstract reason for which or the specific grounds on which the derogation is necessary.
   On 31 October 2006, after the expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion, the Regione Liguria repealed Regional Law No 34/2001, as amended, by Regional Law No 35/2006 of 31 October 2006 and adopted Regional Law No 36/2006, which authorises hunting derogations that disclose the same incompatibilities with Article 9 of the abovementioned directive as those complained of above relating to the earlier regional legal framework.

      (1)  Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 concerning the conservation of wild birds, OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 20 January 1998 in Case T-160/96: Max Kögler v. Court of Justice of the European Communities (Officials - Pension - Weighting - Change of capital of a Member State - Retroactive effect)

text:
28.3.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 94/23
2. orders the Economic and Social Committee to pay all             Bahnhofstraûe 43c, Konz (Germany), represented by Theo
    of the costs.                                                  Baltes and Bernward Wittschier, Rechtsanwälte, of Trier,
                                                                   with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.                                            Chambers of ReneÂ Weber, 3 Rue de la Loge, v. Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities (Agents: Timothy
                                                                   Millett and Bernd Zimmermann), supported by Council of
                                                                   the European Union (Agents: Diego Canga Fano and
                                                                   Martin Bauer) Ð application, first, for annulment of the
                                                                   decision of the Complaints Committee of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of 1 July 1996, second, for the recalculation and
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          definitive determination of the applicant's pension for the
                     of 3 February 1998                            period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1994 on the basis of
                                                                   the weightings for Berlin fixed annually by the Council,
in Case T-68/96: Dimitrios Polyvios v. Commission of the           and, thirdly and in the alternative, for the designation of a
                  European Communities (1)                         date in the near future when that calculation and
(Fisheries Ð Community financial assistance for projects           determination are to take place Ð the Court of First
by joint enterprises Ð Regulation No 4028/86 Ð Extra-              Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,
      contractual liability Ð Manifest inadmissibility)            President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                   Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 January 1998, in
                         (98/C 94/59)                              which it:
                (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                   1. dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible;
In Case T-68/96: Dimitrios Polyvios, residing at Piraeus
(Greece), represented by Vassilios Zangas, of the Athens           2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Catherine Thill-Kamitaki, 15 Avenue du                 (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
Bois, v. Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: Maria Condou Durande and Hubertus van Vliet)
Ð application for compensation for the material damage
allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the
negligence of the Commission on the adoption of a
decision approving an application for financial aid for the
formation of a joint enterprise in Senegal Ð the Court of               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh,                                  (Third Chamber)
President, and K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H.
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 February 1998,                               of 14 January 1998
in which it:                                                       in Case T-30/97: Juana de la Cruz Vela Palacios v.
                                                                         Economic and Social Committee of the European
1. dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible;                                  Communities (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Action for annulment and for damages Ð
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                Time-limit for bringing an action Ð Inadmissible)
                                                                                (98/C 94/61)
(1) OJ C 210, 20.7.1996.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                   In Case T-30/97: Juana de la Cruz Vela Palacios, former
                                                                   official of the Economic and Social Committee of the
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented
                                                                   by Jaime Creus, of the Barcelona Bar, with an address for
                     of 20 January 1998                            service at 377 C/ Consell de Cent, Barcelona, against
in Case T-160/96: Max Kögler v. Court of Justice of the            Economic and Social Committee of the European
                  European Communities (1)                         Communities (Agent: Moises Bermejo Garde) Ð
                                                                   application for the annulment of, first, a decision
(Officials Ð Pension Ð Weighting Ð Change of capital of            imposing on the applicant the disciplinary measure of
           a Member State Ð Retroactive effect)                    relegation in step and, secondly, a decision to reduce her
                         (98/C 94/60)                              annual leave and a claim for compensation for the non-
                                                                   material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a
                                                                   result of those measures Ð the Court of First Instance
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                   (Third Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, C. P.
                                                                   BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
In Case T-160/96: Max Kögler, a former official of the             order on 14 January 1998, the operative part of which is
Court of Justice of the European Communities, residing at          as follows:


title: Case C-525/07 P: Order of the Court of 28 November 2008 — Philippe Combescot v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Career development report — Duty to provide assistance — Mental harassment — Compensation for damage — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/13

         Order of the Court of 28 November 2008 — Philippe Combescot v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-525/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Career development report - Duty to provide assistance - Mental harassment - Compensation for damage - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   (2009/C 69/21)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Philippe Combescot (represented by: A. Maritati and V. Messa, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, and S. Corongiu, avocat)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 in Case T-249/04 Combescot v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an application for, first, recognition that the conduct of the appellant's hierarchical superiors was unlawful; recognition that the appellant had the right to assistance; and annulment of the appellant's career development report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002; and, second, payment of compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the appellant.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Combescot shall pay the costs of the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2000 in Case T-45/00 Conseil National des Professions de l'Automobile and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 — Inadmissibility)

text:
4.11.2000              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 316/25
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
                           of 12 July 2000                                                            of 10 July 2000
                                                                           in Case T-54/00 R: Federación de Cofradı́as de Pescadores
in Case T-45/00 Conseil National des Professions de                        de Guipúzcoa and Others v Council of the European
l’Automobile and Others v Commission of the European                                                       Union
                          Communities (1)
                                                                           (Proceedings for interim relief — Suspension of operation of
                                                                           a measure — Anchovy fishing quota allocated to Portugal to
(Action for annulment — Commission Regulation (EC)                         be fished in waters under French jurisdiction — Intervention
               No 2790/1999 — Inadmissibility)                                                       — Admissibility)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/49)
                          (2000/C 316/48)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                   (Language of the case: French)                          In Case T-54/00 R, Federación de Cofradı́as de Pescadores de
                                                                           Guipúzcoa, established in San Sebastián, Spain, Federación de
                                                                           Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Vizcaya, established in Bilbao,
                                                                           Spain, Federación de Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Cantabria,
In Case T-45/00: Conseil National des Professions de l’Auto-               established in Santander, Spain, and 59 others, represented
mobile, whose registered office is in Suresnes, France, Fédé-              by R. Garcı́a-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, of the Madrid Bar, and
ration Nationale des Distributeurs, Loueurs et Réparateurs de              D. Domı́nguez Pérez, of the La Coruña Bar, and S. J. Berwin
Matériels de Bâtiments, de Travaux Publics et de Manutention,              and Co., 19 Square de Meeûs, Brussels, against the Council of
whose registered office is in Joinville-Le-Pont, France, Auto              the European Union (Agents: J. Carbery, I Dı́ez Parra and
Contrôle 31 SA and Yam 31 SARL, whose registered offices                   Mrs Sims-Robertson) — application for suspension of the
are in Toulouse, France, Marc Foucher-Creteau, resident in                 operation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2742/1999 of
Paris, and Verdier Distribution SARL, whose registered office              17 December 1999 fixing for 2000 the fishing opportunities
is in Juvignac, France, represented by C. Bourgeon, of the Paris           and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                      of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for
Chambers of F. Brouxel, 6 Rue Zithe, against Commission                    Community vessels, in waters where limitations in catch are
of the European Communities (Agent: W. Wils) — applica-                    required and amending Regulation (EC) No 66/98 (OJ 1999
tion for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)                       L 341, p. 1), in so far as it provides that the anchovy
No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of                     quota allocated to Portugal in ICES zones IX and X, CECAF
Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements           area 34.1.1 may partly be fished in the French sector of
and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336, p. 21) — the Court                 ICES zone VIII, or any other interim measure it considers
of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,               appropriate — the President of the Court of First Instance
President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has         made an order on 10 July 2000 the operative part of which is
made an order on 12 July 2000, the operative part of which is              as follows:
as follows:
                                                                           1.    The Commission is granted leave to intervene in Case T-54/00
1.    The application is dismissed as being inadmissible.                        R in support of the forms of order sought by the defendant.
                                                                           2.    The application made by the Comunidad Autónoma del Paı́s
2.    The applicants are ordered to bear the costs.                              Vasco to intervene in Case T-54/00 R is dismissed.
                                                                           3.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                                                                           4.    Costs are reserved.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 September 1995 in Case T-171/94: Descom Scales Manufacturing Co Ltd v. Council of the European Union

text:
28 . 10. 95           I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 286/ 11
of Article 2 1 5 of the EC Treaty — the Court of First Instance       3 . orders the Commission to pay its own costs.
( Second Chamber ), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
and D. P. M. Barrington and A. Saggio, Judges; J. Palacio
Gonzalez, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 September             (>) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
1995 , in which it:
1 . dismisses the application;
2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs;
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 September 1995
3 . orders the French Republic, intervener, to bear its own
      costs .                                                         in Joined Cases T-458/93 and T-523/93 Empresa Nacional
                                                                      de Urânio SA ( ENU ) v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( 1 )
(') OJ No C 27, 28 . 1 . 1994 .                                       (EAEC — Actions for annulment ofmeasures — Supply —
                                                                      Right of option and exclusive right of the Euratom Supply
                                                                      Agency to conclude contracts for the supply of ores, source
                                                                      materials and special fissile materials — Balancing ofsupply
                                                                      and demand -— Infringement of the rules of the Treaty —
                                                                      Communitypreference — None — Commission instruction
                                                                      to the Supply Agency — Principles of good faith and
                                                                           legitimate expectations — Non-contractual liability)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                         ( 95/C 286/27 )
                       of 14 September 1995
in Case T-171/94 : Descom Scales Manufacturing Co Ltd v.                            (Language of the case: Portuguese)
              Council of the European Union ( ] )
                                                                      In Joined Cases T-458/93 and T-523/93 Empresa Nacional
                           ( 95/C 286/26 )                            de Urânio SA ( ENU ), established at Urgeiriça, Nelas
                                                                      ( Portugal ), represented by João Luis dos Reis Mota de
                                                                      Campos, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in
                 (Language of the case: French)                       Luxembourg at the Office of Joaquim Calvo Basáran, 34
                                                                      Boulevard Ernest Feltgen v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities, ( Agents : Antonio Caeiro and Jürgen
In Case T-171 /94 : Descom Scales Manufacturing Co. Ltd, a            Grunwald ) — application for annulment of the
company with its registered office at Seoul, represented by           Commission's decision of 19 July 1993 , on a procedure for
Pierre Didier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service       the application of the second paragraph of Article 53 of the
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Laurent Mosar, 8 Rue                 EAEC Treaty, rejecting requests which the applicant had
Notre-Dame , against the Council of the European Union                submitted to the Commission in a letter of 21 December
(Agents: Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen, Jorge Monteiro and Philip               1990 in order to resolve the problem of the disposal of its
Bentley ), supported by the Commission of the European                uranium production, and for a declaration that the
Communities ( Agent: Marc L. F. De Pauw ) — application               European Atomic Energy Community is liable for the
for the annulment, in relation to the applicant, of Council           damage which the applicant is alleged to have incurred as a
Regulation (EEC ) No 2887/93 of 20 October 1993                       result of an alleged breach of the rules of the Treaty — the
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of                 Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber, extended
certain electronic weighing scales originating in Singapore           composition ) composed of D. P. M. Barringtom, A. Saggio,
and the Republic of Korea ( OJ 1993 L 263 , p. 1 ), the Court         H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung,
of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber, extended composition ),           Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 September 1995 , in
composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, R.                 which it :
Schintgen, R. García-Valdecasas, C. W. Bellamy and P.
Lindh, Judges; B. Pastor, Administrator, for the Registrar,
 has given a judgment on 14 September 1995 , in which                  1 . dismisses the applications;
 it :
                                                                       2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
 1 . dismisses the action;
                                                                       (') OJ No C 316 , 3 . 12 . 1992 and OJ No C 306 , 12 . 11 . 1995 .
 2 . orders the applicant to pay its own costs and the
      Council's costs, including those relating to the
      application for interim measures;


title: Case T-484/08: Action brought on 11 November 2008 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Merck (Kids Vits)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/38

         Action brought on 11 November 2008 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Merck (Kids Vits)
   (Case T-484/08)
   (2009/C 32/75)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action brought by Longevity Health Products, Inc. admissible;

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 28 August 2008 and dismiss the nullity proceedings of Merck KGaA against registration of Community trade mark 003 979 143; and

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Kids Vits’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 (Community trade mark No 3 979 143).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Merck KGaA.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘VIDS4KIDS’ for goods in Class 5 (mark No 3 128 196).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upholding of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 26 November 1996 in Case T-164/95: Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v. European Parliament (Action for declaration of failure to act - Former officials - Social security - Admissibility)

text:
No C 54/20             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 22 . 2 . 97
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             — application for a declaration that the European
                         (Third Chamber )                             Parliament has failed, in breach of Article 175 of the EC
                                                                      Treaty, to propose to the competent institutions of the
                      of 15 January 1997                              European Union amendments to the Staff Regulations of
in Case T-77/95 : Syndicat Français de l'Express                      Officials which would have enabled the applicant to
International and Others v. Commission of the European                remain covered by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme —
                          Communities (')                             the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of:
                                                                      A. Saggio, President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura
(Competition — Action for annulment — Rejection of a                  Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
              complaint — Community interest)                         26 November 1996 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                      follows :
                           ( 97/C 54/31 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                       1.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-77/95 : Syndicat Français de l'Express                      2 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
International, established in Roissy-en-France, France,
DHL International , established in Roissy-en-France,
Service CRIE , established in Paris , and May Courier,                (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
established in Paris, represented by Eric Morgan de
Rivery, of the Paris Bar, and Jacques Derenne, of the
Brussels and Paris Bars, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 avenue
Guillaume v. Commission of the European Communities
( Agents : originally Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz and                  ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Jean-Francis Pasquier, and subsequently Richard Lyal and
Jean-Francis Pasquier ) — application for annulment of                                      of 26 November 1996
Commission Decision SG ( 94 ) D/ 19144 of 30 December                 in Case T-167/95 : Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v. Council of
1994 rejecting the complaint of 21 December 1990 by                                        the European Union (')
Syndicat Français de l'Express International — the Court
of First Instance ( Third Chamber ), composed of: B.                  (Action for declaration of failure to act — Former officials
Vesterdorf, President, C. P. Briët and A. Potocki , Judges; J.                      — Social security — Admissibility)
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                                            ( 97/C 54/33 )
given a judgment on 15 January 1997, in which it:
 1 . Dismisses the application.                                                      (Language of the case: German)
2 . Orders the applicants to pay the costs.                           In Case T-167/95 : Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter, the divorced
                                                                      spouse of a former official of the European Parliament,
(') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .                                       residing at Kehlen ( Luxembourg ), represented by Dieter
                                                                      Rogalla , Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhövel , with an address for
                                                                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Armin
                                                                      Machmer, 1 rue Roger Barthel , Bereldange, v. Council of
                                                                      the European Union ( Agents : Diego Canga Fano and Jan
                                                                      Peter Hix ) — application for a declaration that the
                                                                      Council has failed, in breach of Article 175 of the EC
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      Treaty, to propose to the competent institutions of the
                     of 26 November 1996                              European Union amendments to the Staff Regulations of
                                                                      Officials which would have enabled the applicant to
in Case T- 164/95 : Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v. European
                                                                      remain covered by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme —
                           Parliament (')
                                                                      the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of:
 (Action for declaration of failure to act — Former officials         A. Saggio, President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura
              — Social security — Admissibility)                      Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                            ( 97/C 54/32 )
                                                                      26 November 1996 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                      follows :
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       1.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-164/95 : Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter, the divorced
spouse of a former official of the European Parliament,               2 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
residing at Kehlen ( Luxembourg), represented by Dieter
Rogalla , Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhövel, with an address for               (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Armin
Machmer, 1 rue Roger Barthel , Bereldange, v. European
Parliament ( Agents : Christian Pennera and Hans Krück )


C 246/22              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28.8.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-460/98 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-14/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 246/43)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/44)
By order of 4 June 1999, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-460/98 (reference for a preliminary          By order of 10 June 1999, the President of the Court of Justice
ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Sutterlüty GmbH &          of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Co v Vorarlberger Landersregierung.                                 the register of Case C-14/99: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/53

         Action brought on 9 February 2004 by Carlos Leite Mateus against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-51/04)
   (2004/C 94/142)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 February 2004 by Carlos Leite Mateus, residing in Zaventem (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of 14 March 2003 drawing up the applicant's career development report for 2001-2002;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant disputes his career development report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002.
   In support of his claims he relies on pleas of:

               —

               breach of the obligation to state grounds;

               —

               a manifest error of assessment;

               —

               breach of the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, in that, first, the decision of the appeal assessor to downgrade the assessment of the applicant's skills was erroneously based on tasks which were not his responsibility and were not required by his post, and, second, there were inconsistencies between the comments and the marks awarded.


title: Case C-496/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 November 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to comply with the judgment — Article 228 EC — Financial penalties)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/5

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 November 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic
      (Case C-496/09) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to comply with the judgment - Article 228 EC - Financial penalties)
      (2012/C 25/07)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro, E. Righini and B. Stromsky, Agents)

         Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, F. Arena and S. Fiorentino, avvocati dello Stato)

         Re:

      Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 228 EC — Failure to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 1 April 2004 in Case C-99/02 — Application for a penalty payment to be imposed

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, by failing, by the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion issued by the Commission of the European Communities on 1 February 2008 pursuant to Article 228 EC, to take all the measures needed to comply with the judgment of 1 April 2004 in Case C-99/02 Commission v Italy concerning the recovery from the recipients of the aid which was found to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2000/128/EC of 11 May 1999 concerning aid granted by Italy to promote employment, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that decision and Article 228(1) EC;

                  2.

                  Orders the Italian Republic to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of an amount calculated by multiplying the basic amount of EUR 30 million by the percentage of the unlawful aid that has not yet been recovered, or not shown to have been recovered, at the end of the period concerned, compared to the total amount not yet recovered on the date of delivery of the present judgment, for every six months of delay in implementing the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of 1 April 2004 in Case C-99/02 Commission v Italy, from the present judgment until compliance with the judgment of 1 April 2004;

                  3.

                  Orders the Italian Republic to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 30 million;

                  4.

                  Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 April 2003 in Case T-155/01: Robert Walton v Commission of the European Communities (Temporary staff — Dismissal for unsatisfactory performance of duties — Action for annulment and for compensation for dismissal)

text:
7.6.2003                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 135/27
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                address for service in Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation
                                                                            in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                           of 9 April 2003                                  (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and O. Waelbroeck): Action
                                                                            brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
in Case T-155/01: Robert Walton v Commission of the                         the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                    European Communities ( 1)                               Marks and Designs) of 6 July 2001 (Case R 864/1999-1),
                                                                            relating to opposition proceedings between Durferrit GmbH
(Temporary staff — Dismissal for unsatisfactory perform-                    and Kolene Corporation, the Court of First Instance (Fourth
ance of duties — Action for annulment and for compensation                  Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and
                             for dismissal)                                 P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
                                                                            Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 April 2003, in which it:
                           (2003/C 135/41)
                                                                            1.     Dismisses the action;
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
In Case T-155/01, Robert Walton, a former member of
the temporary staff of the Commission of the European
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.
Communities, residing in Oxford (United Kingdom), represent-
ed by P. Harris, Barrister, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: J. Currall): Application principally for
annulment of the letter of 3 October 2000, whereby the
Commission terminated the applicant’s employment as a
member of the temporary staff, and for compensation for
breach of his contract of employment, the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: N.J. Forwood,
President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
9 April 2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                of 3 April 2003
1.     The application is dismissed.
2.     The parties shall bear their own costs.                              in Case T-114/02: Babyliss SA v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities ( 1)
( 1) OJ C 275 of 29.09.2001.
                                                                            (Competition — Concentrations — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            No 4064/89 — Action brought by a third party — Admissi-
                                                                            bility — Phase one undertakings — Trade mark licence —
                                                                            Amendments to undertakings — Time-limits — Financial
                                                                            assistance provided by the State — Derisory trade-in price
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            — Serious doubts concerning the compatibility of the
                                                                            concentration with the common market — Absence of
                           of 9 April 2003
                                                                            undertaking with regard to markets posing serious compe-
                                                                                tition problems)
in Case T-224/01: Durferrit GmbH v Office for Harmonis-
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                               (OHIM) (1)                                                             (2003/C 135/43)
(Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier
word mark TUFFTRIDE — Application for Community                                                 (Language of the case: French)
word mark NU-TRIDE — Likelihood of confusion —
Likelihood of association — Trade marks which are contrary
to public policy or to accepted principles of morality —
Article 7(1)(f) and Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation                   In Case T-114/02: Babyliss SA, established in Montrouge
                            (EC) No 40/94)                                  (France) represented by J.-P. Gunther, lawyer, supported by De
                                                                            Longhi SpA, established in Trevisso (Italy), represented by
                           (2003/C 135/42)                                  M. Merola, D. Domenicucci and I. van Schendel, lawyers,
                                                                            against Commission of the European Comunities (Agents:
                    (Language of the case: English)                         V. Superti, K. Wiedner and F. Lelièvre), supported by SEB SA,
                                                                            established in Écully (France), represented by D. Voillemot
                                                                            and S. Hautbourg, lawyers — application for annulment of
In Case T-224/01, Durferrit GmbH, established in Mannheim                   Commission Decision D/228078 of 8 January 2002 not to
(Germany), represented by P. Koch Moreno, lawyer, with an                   oppose the concentration between SEB and Moulinex and to


title: Case C-192/10: Action brought on 19 April 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/3

         Action brought on 19 April 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-192/10)
   2010/C 195/05
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and A. Marghelis, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Kingdom of Spain, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure the fulfilment of the obligations relating to the closure and monitoring and control in the aftercare phase of the Cova da Loba landfill site, situated in O Grove (Pontevedra, Galicia), has not complied with its obligations under Articles 13 and 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC (1) of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste;

               —

               order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The main purpose of Directive 1999/31/EC is to prevent or reduce as far as possible negative effects on the environment, in particular the pollution of surface water, groundwater, soil and air, and on the global environment, including the greenhouse effect, as well as any resulting risk to human health, from landfilling of waste, during the whole life-cycle of the landfill.

               2.

               As is apparent from the information communicated by the competent Spanish authorities, the Cova da Loba landfill site was authorised in 2000. It is, thus, an existing landfill site for the purposes of Article 14 of Directive 1999/31/EC.

               3.

               The Cova da Loba landfill site was abandoned without closure or ensuring its monitoring and control in the aftercare phase, as laid down in Article 13 of the directive.

               4.

               Thus, it follows from the information transmitted by the Spanish authorities that the closure of the Cova da Loba landfill site has not yet been completed. The situation of that landfill site thus infringes, on the basis of the foregoing considerations, what is laid down in Article 14 of Directive 1999/31/EC.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.


title: Case C-376/00: Action brought on 11 October 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
9.12.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 355/13
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       Under the third paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        directives are to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                       upon each Member State to which it is addressed. Under the
                                                                       first paragraph of Article 10 of the EC Treaty, Member States
Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which           are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,          particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation           of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance              of the Community.
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 8 April 1999
without Ireland having adopted all the measures necessary to
comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of the        The Commission finds that, to date, despite the expiry of the
Commission.                                                            prescribed period, the Italian Republic has not forwarded the
                                                                       reports on the implementation of the directives referred to in
                                                                       the Commission’s application.
(1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 6.
                                                                       (1) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 48.
                                                                       (2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 23.
                                                                       (3) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
Action brought on 11 October 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic               Action brought on 13 October 2000 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
                        (Case C-376/00)                                                         of Luxembourg
                        (2000/C 355/25)                                                         (Case C-377/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 355/26)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice on 11 October 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
the European Communities, represented by Hans Støvelbaek,
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
of its Legal Service, and Roberto Amorosi, judge on
                                                                       ties on 13 October 2000 by the Commission of the European
secondment to the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                       Communities represented by Bernard Mongin, a member of its
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                       Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                       Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
Kirchberg.
                                                                       Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Declare that, by failing to forward within the period            1.    declare that, by failing to adopt or notify the laws,
      prescribed by Article 5 of Council Directive                           regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      91/692/EEC (1) of 23 December 1991 standardizing and                   comply with Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March
      rationalizing reports on the implementation of certain                 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships (1),
      Directives relating to the environment the reports                     Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      required under:                                                        Directive;
      —     Article 18 of Council Directive 75/439/EEC (2) of          2.    Order Luxembourg to pay the costs.
            16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, as
            amended by Directive 87/101/EEC;                           Pleas in law and main arguments
      —     Article 121 of Directive 75/442/EEC (3) on waste as        The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
            amended by Directive 91/156/EEC;                           submitted in Case C-335/00 (2); the period prescribed by
                                                                       Article 14(1) of Directive 98/18/EC expired on 1 July 1998.
      each of which as amended by Article 5 of the abovemen-
      tioned Directive 91/692/EEC, in respect of the period
      1995-1997, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its         (1) OJ L 144 of 15.5.1998, p. 1.
      obligations under the abovementioned directives.                 (2) OJ C ...
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case C-47/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Administratīvo lietu departaments — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v ‘Veloserviss’ SIA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Community Customs Code — Article 220(2)(b) — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Legitimate expectations — Conditions under which applicable — Error of the customs authorities — Obligation imposed on the importer to act in good faith and to verify the circumstances of the issue of the Form A certificate of origin — Means of proof — Report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF))

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/11

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Administratīvo lietu departaments — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v ‘Veloserviss’ SIA
   (Case C-47/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Community Customs Code - Article 220(2)(b) - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Legitimate expectations - Conditions under which applicable - Error of the customs authorities - Obligation imposed on the importer to act in good faith and to verify the circumstances of the issue of the Form A certificate of origin - Means of proof - Report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)))
   (2017/C 151/15)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Administratīvo lietu departaments

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Defendant:‘Veloserviss’ SIA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 must be interpreted as meaning that an importer may not rely on a legitimate expectation, in accordance with that provision, in order to object to a post-clearance incurring of liability for import duties, submitting that he acted in good faith, unless three cumulative conditions are met. It is necessary, first of all, that those duties were not levied as a result of an error on the part of the competent authorities themselves, secondly, that that error was such that it could not reasonably have been detected by a person liable for payment acting in good faith and, finally, that that person complied with all the provisions laid down by the legislation in force as regards his customs declaration. Such a legitimate expectation is lacking, in particular, where, although there are clear reasons for doubting the accuracy of a Form A certificate of origin, an importer failed to obtain, using his best efforts, information concerning the circumstances of the issue of that certificate in order to verify whether those doubts were well founded. Such an obligation does not however mean that an importer is required, in general, to systematically verify the circumstances of the issue, by the customs authorities of the exporting country, of a Form A certificate of origin. It is for the referring court to determine, taking into account all of the specific facts of the dispute in the main proceedings, whether those three conditions are met in this case.

               2.

               Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, it can be deduced from the information contained in an European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) report that an importer may not rely on a legitimate expectation, in accordance with that provision, in order to object to a post-clearance incurring of liability for import duties. To the extent, however, that such a report contains only a general description of the situation at issue, which it is for the national court to determine, it cannot, on its own, suffice in order to show to the requisite legal standard that those conditions are indeed met in all respects, in particular as regards the relevant conduct of the exporter. In those circumstances, it is, in principle, for the customs authorities of the importing country to prove, by means of additional evidence, that the issue, by the customs authorities of the exporting country, of an incorrect Form A certificate of origin is attributable to an incorrect statement of the facts by the exporter. However, where the customs authorities of the importing country are unable to adduce that evidence, it is, as the case may be, for the importer to prove that that certificate was issued on the basis of a correct statement of the facts by the exporter.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


title: Case T-310/05: Action brought on 12 August 2005 — ASTEC Global Consultancy/Commission

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/21

         Action brought on 12 August 2005 — ASTEC Global Consultancy/Commission
   (Case T-310/05)
   (2005/C 271/42)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): ASTEC Global Consultancy Limited (Dublin, Ireland) [represented by: B. O'Connor, solicitor and I. Carreño, lawyer]

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the European Commission's Decision of 25 July 2005 (Reference no. AIDCO/F3/ACH D (2005) 19574), rejecting the applicant's application to participate in Lot 3 of the Commission procurement procedure EuropeAid//119860/C/SV multi;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, acting as consortium leader, applied on 15 April 2005 for Lot 3 of the Framework contract in the context of a re-launch of the Commission procurement procedure EuropeAid//119860/C/SV/multi. One of the other members of the applicant's consortium was Austroconsult Ges.m.b.H. That company was also a partner in another consortium applying for the same lot. On 31 May 2005 Austroconsult formally withdrew from that other consortium.
   By the contested Decision the Commission refused to short-list the applicant's application on the grounds that it did not comply with the Procurement Notice since Austroconsult was also present in another application.
   In support of its request to annul the contested Decision the applicant contends that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements in procurement procedures, since any conflict of interest due to Austroconsult's participation in two consortiums had been resolved by its withdrawal from the other consortium. In the same context, the applicant alleges in the alternative that Austroconsult could not have been considered a valid member of the other consortium, since its formal letter in the application package was not dated.
   The applicant further alleges that the Commission infringed the principles of equal treatment, sound administration and due diligence, as it failed to investigate Austroconsult's withdrawal from the other consortium, if it had doubts about it, and failed to inform the applicant of its concerns. The applicant considers that its exclusion without any further clarification was disproportionate and in violation of good administration.
   Finally, the applicant alleges that by establishing a short-list of only six candidates and continuing the tender procedure, the Commission has infringed the rules set down in the tender notice requiring a minimum of eight candidates. It also considers that it has been discriminated against, in that in the original launch and in the first re-launch of the tender procedure, in both of which the applicant had been successful, the rule requiring a short list of at least eight candidates had been observed, contrary to what has been the case at the second re-launch, from which the applicant was excluded.


title: Judgment of the Court of 24 July 2003 in Case C-280/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Altmark Trans GmbH, Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg v Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH (Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 — Operation of urban, suburban and regional scheduled transport services — Public subsidies — Concept of State aid — Compensation for discharging public service obligations)

text:
20.9.2003               EN                              Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 226/1
                                                                            I
                                                                      (Information)
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                                 COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, and subsequently
                                                                                H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                           of 24 July 2003                                      given a judgment on 24 July 2003, in which it has ruled:
in Case C-280/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Altmark Trans GmbH,                              1.  Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969
Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg v Nahverkehrsgesell-                                  on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent
                    schaft Altmark GmbH (1)                                         in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and
                                                                                inland waterway, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No
(Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 — Operation of urban, sub-                             1893/91 of 20 June 1991, and more particularly the second
urban and regional scheduled transport services — Public                            subparagraph of Article 1(1) thereof, must be interpreted as
subsidies — Concept of State aid — Compensation for dis-                            allowing a Member State not to apply the regulation to the
               charging public service obligations)                                 operation of urban, suburban or regional scheduled transport
                                                                                services which necessarily depend on public subsidies, and to
                           (2003/C 226/01)                                          limit its application to cases where the provision of an adequate
                                                                                transport service is not otherwise possible, provided however that
                   (Language of the case: German)                                   the principle of legal certainty is duly observed.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                     the European Court Reports)                                2.  The condition for the application of Article 92(1) of the EC
                                                                                Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC) that the aid
                                                                                must be such as to affect trade between Member States does not
                                                                                depend on the local or regional character of the transport services
In Case C-280/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                       supplied or on the scale of the field of activity concerned.
by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Altmark Trans GmbH, Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg and                               However, public subsidies intended to enable the operation of
Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH, third party:                                  urban, suburban or regional scheduled transport services are not
Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, on the                              caught by that provision where such subsidies are to be regarded
interpretation of Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-                    as compensation for the services provided by the recipient under-
ment, Article 87 EC), Article 77 of the EC Treaty (now                              takings in order to discharge public service obligations. For the
Article 73 EC), and Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the                              purpose of applying that criterion, it is for the national court to
Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concern-                         ascertain that the following conditions are satisfied:
ing the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in
transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ, English Special
Edition 1969 (I), p. 276), as amended by Council Regulation                         —     first, the recipient undertaking is actually required to dis-
(EEC) No 1893/91 of 20 June 1991 (OJ 1991 L 169, p. 1), the                               charge public service obligations and those obligations have
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                                   been clearly defined;
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers),
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris,                      —     second, the parameters on the basis of which the compen-
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues                                 sation is calculated have been established beforehand in an
and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;                                         objective and transparent manner;
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/2                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                20.9.2003
      —    third, the compensation does not exceed what is necessary to      Marion Roussel Ltd, established in Denham (United Kingdom),
           cover all or part of the costs incurred in discharging the        Hoechst Marion Roussel SA, established in Brussels (Belgium),
           public service obligations, taking into account the relevant      Marion Merrell SA, established in Puteaux (France), Marion
           receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those            Merrell SA, established in Barcelona (Spain), Sanova Pharma
           obligations;                                                      GmbH, established in Vienna (Austria), Temmler Pharma GmbH
                                                                             & Co.KG, established in Marburg (Germany), Schuck GmbH,
      —    fourth, where the undertaking which is to discharge public        established in Schwaig (Germany), Laboratoires Roussell Lda,
           service obligations is not chosen in a public procurement         established in Mem Martins (Portugal), Laboratoires Roussell
           procedure, the level of compensation needed has been deter-       Diamant SARL, established in Puteaux, Roussel Iberica SA,
           mined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a            established in Barcelona, (represented by B. Sträter and
           typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with        M. Ambrosius), Gerot Pharmazeutika GmbH, established in
           means of transport so as to be able to meet the necessary         Vienna, (represented by K. Grigkar), Cambridge Healthcare
           public service requirements, would have incurred in dischar-      Supplies Ltd, established in Rackhearth (United Kingdom),
           ging those obligations, taking into account the relevant          (represented by M. D. Vaughan, QC, K. Bacon, barrister, and
           receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the              S. Davis, solicitor), and Laboratoires pharmaceutiques Trenker
           obligations.                                                      SA, established in Brussels, (represented by L. Defalque and
                                                                             X. Leurquin), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
                                                                             President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, C.W.
3.   Article 77 of the EC Treaty (now Article 73 EC) cannot be
                                                                             A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.
     applied to public subsidies which compensate for the additional
                                                                             O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris,
     costs incurred in discharging public service obligations without
                                                                             F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and
     taking into account Regulation No 1191/69, as amended by
                                                                             A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; M. Múgica
     Regulation No 1893/91.
                                                                             Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
                                                                             a judgment on 24 July 2003, in which it:
(1) OJ C 273 of 23.9.2000.                                                   1.   Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                             2.   Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the
                                                                                costs of these proceedings and those relating to the application for
                                                                                interim relief.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (1) OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.
                           of 24 July 2003
in Case C-39/03 P: Commission of the European
      Communities v Artegodan GmbH and Others (1)
(Appeal — Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC —                                                   ORDER OF THE COURT
Medicinal products for human use — Anorectics: amfepra-
mone, clobenzorex,            fenproporex,      norpseudoephedrine,                                     (First Chamber)
phentermine — Withdrawal of a marketing authorisation —
Competence of the Commission — Conditions for withdrawal)                                               of 24 July 2003
                                                                             in Case C-166/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                           (2003/C 226/02)                                   the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Alcácer do Sal): Daniel
                                                                             Fernando Messejana Viegas v Companhia de Seguros
                                                                                Zurich SA, Mitsubishi Motors de Portugal SA (1)
        (Languages of the case: German, English and French)
                                                                             (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Answer which
                                                                             may be clearly deduced from existing case-law — Second
                                                                             Directive 84/5/EEC — Compulsory insurance against civil
In Case C-39/03 P, Commission of the European Communities,                   liability in respect of motor vehicles — Types of civil
(Agents: R. B. Wainwright and H. Støvlbæk, assisted by                                   liability — Minimum amounts of cover)
B. Wägenbaur): Appeal against the judgment of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber,                                             (2003/C 226/03)
Extended Composition) of 26 November 2002 in Joined Cases
T-74/00, T-76/00, T-83/00 to T-85/00, T-132/00, T-137/00                                        (Language of the case: Portuguese)
and T-141/00 Artegodan and Others v Commission [2002]
ECR II-4945, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
other parties to the proceedings being: Artegodan GmbH,                                            the European Court Reports)
established in Lüchow (Germany), (represented by U. Doepner),
Bruno Farmaceutici SpA, established in Rome (Italy), Essential               In Case C-166/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
Nutrition Ltd, established in Brough (United Kingdom), Hoechst               by the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Alcácer do Sal (Portugal)