title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 March 1996 in Case T-134/95: Dysan Magnetics Ltd and Review Magnetics (Macao) Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - Notice of initiation of anti-dumping proceedings - Inadmissibility)

text:
No C 133/22            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4 . 5 . 96
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              notice of initiation of anti-dumping proceedings concerning
                       of 28 March 1996                              imports of certain magnetic disks ( 3,5" microdisks )
                                                                     originating in Canada , Indonesia, Macao and Thailand ( OJ
in Case T-40/95 : V v. Commission of the European                    No C 84 , 1995 , p . 4 ) — the Court of First Instance ( Third
                        Communities ( 1 )                            Chamber, Enlarged Composition ), composed of C. P. Briët,
(Officials — Disciplinary measures — Removal from post —             President, B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D.
           Reasons — Aggravating circumstances)                      Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                         ( 96/C 133/50 )                             14 March 1996 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                     follows :
               (Language of the case: French)                        1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-40/95 : V, a former official of the Commission of          2 . The applicants shall bear the costs.
the European Communities, residing at Arlon ( Belgium ),
represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                (M OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
Sari , 1 Rue Glesener, v . Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —
application for annulment of the decision of the
Commission of 18 January 1995 removing the applicant
                                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
from his post without reduction or withdrawal of
entitlement to retirement pension — the Court of First                                     of 11 March 1996
Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen,                in Case T-195/95 : Guérin Automobiles v. Commission of
President, and R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi — Judges;                           the European Communities ( 1 )
L. Kintzelé-Prussen, Legal Secretary, for the Registrar, has
                                                                     (Competition — Actions against Community institutions
given a judgment on 28 March 1996 , in which it:
                                                                     for failure to act and for damages — Objection of
                                                                                inadmissibility)
1 . annuls the decision of the Commission of 18 January
     1 995 removing the applicant from his post;                                               ( 96/C 133/52 )
2 , orders the Commission to bear all of the costs, including                        (Language of the case: French)
    those incurred in the proceedings for interim
    measures .
                                                                     In Case T-195/95 : Guérin Automobiles, a company
                                                                     incorporated under French law, in liquidation, established
C ) OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .                                       at Alençon ( France ), represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux,
                                                                     of the Paris and Brussels Bars, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue
                                                                     Béatrix de Bourbon, v. Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities ( Agents : Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz
                                                                     and Guy Charrier ) — application for a declaration that the
                                                                     Commission has failed to notify complaints against Nissan
    ORTDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            France SA, alternatively for damages — the Court of First
                                                                     Instance ( Second Chamber, extended composition ),
                       of 14 March 1996
                                                                     composed of H. Kirschner, President, and B. Vesterdorf,
in Case T- 1 34/95 : Dysan Magnetics Ltd and Review                  C. W. Bellamy, A. Kalogeropoulos and A. Potocki, Judges;
Magnetics ( Macao ) Ltd v. Commission of the European                H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 11 March 1996 , the
                        Communities ( ! )                            operative part of which is as follows :
(Action for annulment — Notice of initiation of
        anti-dumping proceedings — Inadmissibility)                  I . the application is dimissed as inadmissible in so far as it
                                                                         seeks a declaration of failure to act on the part of the
                          ( 96/C 133/51 )                                 Commission ;
               (Language of the case: English)                       2 , as regards the forms of order sought in relation to
                                                                         damages, the Court's decision on the objection of
                                                                         inadmissibility raised by the defendant is reserved for
In Case T- 1 34/95 : Dysan Magnetics Ltd, established in                  the final judgment;
Reading, United Kingdom, and Review Magnetics ( Macao )
Ltd, established in Macao, represented by Mark Clough                3,   the costs are reserved.
and Mark Brealey, Barristers, instructed by Rosenblatt,
Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                     (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, against
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
Nicholas Khan ) — application for the annulment of the


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 September 2003 in Case C-125/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Leipzig): Peter Pflücke v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Protection of workers — Insolvency of the employer — Guarantee of payment of outstanding salary — National provision laying down a two-month time-limit for lodging applications for payment and providing for an extension of that time-limit)

text:
1.11.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 264/7
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             mentioned in that provision, if it relates to the management of
                                                                                that waste as such within the meaning of Article 1(d) of
                                                                                Directive 75/442, and if it results in a level of protection of the
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                           environment at least equivalent to that aimed at by that
                                                                                directive, whatever the date of its entry into force.
                       of 11 September 2003
                                                                              (1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
in Case C-114/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Korkein hallinto-oikeus): AvestaPolarit Chrome Oy,
             formerly Outokumpu Chrome Oy (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Approximation of laws — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/
156/EEC — Meaning of ‘waste’ — Production residue —                                                     (Fifth Chamber)
Mine — Use — Storage — Article 2(1)(b) — Meaning
of ‘other legislation’ — National legislation outside the                                            of 18 September 2003
   framework of Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC)
                                                                              in Case C-125/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Sozialgericht Leipzig): Peter Pflücke v Bundesanstalt
                           (2003/C 264/10)                                                                für Arbeit (1)
                                                                              (Protection of workers — Insolvency of the employer —
                    (Language of the case: Finnish)
                                                                              Guarantee of payment of outstanding salary — National
                                                                              provision laying down a two-month time-limit for lodging
                                                                              applications for payment and providing for an extension of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                that time-limit)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/11)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-114/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) for a preliminary                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
ruling in the proceedings brought before that court by                                            in the European Court Reports)
AvestaPolarit Chrome Oy, formerly Outokumpu Chrome Oy,
on the interpretation of Articles 1(a) and 2(1)(b) of Council
Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975                        In Case C-125/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC                     EC by the Sozialgericht Leipzig (Germany) for a preliminary
of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), the Court                             ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),                  Peter Pflücke and Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, on the interpret-
President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken                 ation of Article 9 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 Octo-
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate                       ber 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,               States relating to the protection of employees in the event of
has given a judgment on 11 September 2003, in which it has                    the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), the
ruled:                                                                        Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of
                                                                              the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-
                                                                              teur), P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
1.    In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the       General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 Sep-
      holder of leftover rock and residual sand from ore-dressing             tember 2003, in which it has ruled:
      operations from the operation of a mine discards or intends to
      discard those substances, which must consequently be classified
                                                                              1.    Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the
      as waste within the meaning of Council Directive 75/442/EEC
                                                                                approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
      of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive                     protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their
      91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, unless he uses them lawfully                     employer does not preclude the application of a time-limit laid
      for the necessary filling in of the galleries of that mine and
                                                                                down by national law for the lodging of an application by an
      provides sufficient guarantees as to the identification and actual
                                                                                employee seeking to obtain, in accordance with the detailed
      use of the substances to be used for that purpose.                            rules laid down in that directive, a compensation payment in
                                                                                respect of outstanding salary claims resulting from his
2.    In so far as it does not constitute a measure of application of               employer’s insolvency, provided that the time-limit is no less
      Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, and in                      favourable than those governing similar domestic applications
      particular Article 11 of that directive, national legislation must            (principle of equivalence) and is not framed in such a way as to
      be regarded as ‘other legislation’ within the meaning of                      render impossible in practice the exercise of rights conferred by
      Article 2(1)(b) of that directive covering a category of waste                Community law (principle of effectiveness);
 ---pagebreak--- C 264/8                   EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                                1.11.2003
2.     If the national court finds that the national provision laying                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
       down the time-limit is not compatible with the requirements of
       Community law and that no compatible interpretation of that
       provision is possible, it must refuse to apply the provision in                                  (Fifth Chamber)
       question.
                                                                                of 18 September 2003
(1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
                                                                             in Case C-168/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Bosal Holding BV v
                                                                                Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (Freedom of establishment — Taxation — Taxes on company
                                                                             profits — Limitation of the deductibility in one Member
                            (First Chamber)
                                                                             State of costs connected with holdings of a parent company
                                                                             in its subsidiaries established in other Member States —
                        of 11 September 2003
                                                                                Coherence of the tax system)
in Case C-155/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Cookies World Vertriebsge-                                                 (2003/C 264/13)
   sellschaft mbH iL v Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol (1)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Motor vehicle made available                                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
under a leasing contract — Taxable transactions — Own
consumption — Article 17(6) and (7) — Exclusions provided
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
for under national law at the date of entry into force of the
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                                directive)
                           (2003/C 264/12)
                    (Language of the case: German)                           In Case C-168/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                             EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                     in the European Court Reports)                          court between Bosal Holding BV and Staatssecretaris van
                                                                             Financiën, on the interpretation of Article 52 of the EC Treaty
                                                                             (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC), of Article 58 of the EC
In Case C-155/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   Treaty (now Article 48 EC), and of Council Directive 90/435/
EC by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary                 EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of
Cookies World Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH iL and Finanzlandes-                 different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6), the Court
direktion für Tirol, on the interpretation, in particular, of                (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
Articles 5 and 6 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                   P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value                   D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),                given a judgment on 18 September 2003, in which it has
the Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President               ruled:
of the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges;
L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Admin-                 Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common
istrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 Septem-              system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and
ber 2003, in which it has ruled:                                             subsidiaries of different Member States, interpreted in the light of
                                                                             Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC)
The provisions of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                  precludes a national provision which, when determining the tax on
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                   the profits of a parent company established in one Member State,
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added             makes the deductibility of costs in connection with that company’s
tax: uniform basis of assessment preclude a measure of a Member              holding in the capital of a subsidiary established in another Member
State which provides that payment for services supplied in other             State subject to the condition that such costs be indirectly instrumental
Member States to a person in the first Member State is subject to            in making profits which are taxable in the Member State where the
VAT whereas, had the services in question been supplied within the           parent company is established.
territory of the country, the person to whom they were supplied would
not have been entitled to deduction of input tax.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.


title: Case T-179/00: Action brought on 3 July 2000 by A. Menarini Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite Srl against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 285/12               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.10.2000
(b) infringement, resulting from misapplication of the law,           According to the Commission, it is apparent from the file
      of, respectively, Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC)        received by it from the Netherlands authorities that there can
      No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the repayment or                   be no question of any manipulation on the part of Cargill. Be
      remission of import or export duties, as last amended by        that as it may, Cargill did not act with all due care in the
      Regulation (EEC) No 1854/89, Article 239 of Council             present case.
      Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 estab-
      lishing the Community Customs Code (‘the Customs
                                                                      However, according to Cargill, there can be no question of its
      Code’) and Articles 905 to 909 of Commission Regu-
                                                                      having failed to exercise due care, since its authorisation to
      lation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down
                                                                      engage in inward processing presupposed at the same time the
      provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
                                                                      possible application of the system of equivalent compensation.
      (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs
      Code (‘the implementing regulation’);
                                                                      Moreover, Cargill previously made repeated approaches to the
                                                                      competent Netherlands authorities with a view to obtaining
(c)   infringement of the obligation to state reasons, as laid
                                                                      clarification regarding the question whether or not it had
      down in Article 253 EC;
                                                                      correctly applied the relevant rules concerning inward pro-
                                                                      cessing and equivalent compensation. Cargill cannot be blamed
(d) breach of the principle of proportionality.                       for the fact that the national authorities committed an error;
                                                                      and, moreover, special circumstances exist within the meaning
                                                                      of Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/79 and Article 239 of
Cargill was originally an undertaking engaged in the processing       the Customs Code.
of maize. The end product was glucose. As a result of
low wheat prices and improved processing techniques, the
processing of wheat into glucose subsequently became profit-
able. Following the final stage of the production process, the
same equipment is used without distinction for the two raw
materials.
Cargill imported maize under the inward processing arrange-           Action brought on 3 July 2000 by A. Menarini Industrie
ments, paying no import duties in respect of the imported             Farmaceutiche Riunite Srl against the Commission of the
quantities. On the other hand, it was obliged to export the                               European Communities
compensating product without any refund within 6 months
after importation.                                                                             (Case T-179/00)
The competent Netherlands authority demanded from the                                          (2000/C 285/24)
applicant payment of a customs debt, stating that, to the extent
that glucose was manufactured from a mixed commodity flow
consisting of maize and wheat, the use of wheat therein                                  (Language of the case: English)
was impermissible under the rules governing the system
of equivalent compensation (Article 9 of Regulation (EEC)
No 2228/91, Article 569 of the implementing regulation and            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Article 27(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for                European Communities on 3 July 2000 by A. Menarini Indus-
the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural       trie Farmaceutiche Riunite Srl, represented by Denis Wael-
products).                                                            broeck and Dirk Brinckman of Liedekerke Simeon Wessing
                                                                      Houthoff, Brussels.
In its decision, the Commission states that the present case
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
concerns a special situation within the meaning of Article 13
of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 and Article 239 of the
Customs Code respectively. The reasons advanced by it for             —     annul the decision of the Commission rejecting the
that assertion are that Cargill has satisfied all the rules                 request by the applicant to use its logo in the blue box of
laid down under the abovementioned inward processing                        the packaging of the pharmaceutical product OPTRUMA;
arrangements. Moreover, the production process in question
constitutes a normal procedure in the European starch industry        —     subsidiarily declare also the European Commission Guide-
for undertakings which use both maize and wheat as raw                      line on Packaging Information of medical products for
materials for the production of glucose.                                    human use authorised by the Community illegal under
                                                                            Article 241 EC in so far as it could be read as containing
                                                                            a prohibition on the use of the logo by the local
The Commission observes, however, that such a special                       representative or a licensee;
situation may nevertheless give rise to remission of import
duties only if no manipulation or manifest negligence can be          —     order the defendant to bear the costs of the present
imputed to the person concerned.                                            proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- 7.10.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 285/13
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Action brought on 11 July 2000 by Marco Pannella against
                                                                                the European Parliament
The applicant is a licensee and local representative for a
pharmaceutical product marketed under the name OPTRUMA.                                          (Case T-182/00)
This product was registered under the centralised Community
authorisation procedure, as laid down by Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2309/93 (1).                                                                           (2000/C 285/25)
The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission decision                               (Language of the case: Italian)
refusing the use of its company logo in the so-called ‘blue box’
on the outer packaging of the product.
                                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
This ‘blue box’ is a boxed area provided to accommodate the
                                                                        on 11 July 2000 by Marco Pannella, represented by Piero
specific information Member States may require to appear on             A.M. Ferrari, of the Rome Bar, with an address for service
the package as laid down by Article 5 (2) of Directive
                                                                        in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
92/27/EEC (2).
                                                                        Albert 1er.
The annulment is sought on the following grounds:
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     lack of any legal basis in the applicable Community
                                                                        —     declare the present action admissible;
      regulations to adopt the contested decision;
                                                                        —     annul Decision No 303663 of the College of Quaestors
—     illegal interference with the applicant’s right of property
                                                                              of 17 April 2000;
      to the extent that the logo constitutes a property right
      protected under the Treaty;
                                                                        —     order the Parliament to pay the costs.
—     breach of the principle of non-discrimination;
—     frustration of the legitimate expectation which the Com-          Pleas in law and main arguments
      mission caused the applicant to entertain;
                                                                        The present action seeks annulment of Decision No 303663
—     lack of an appropriate statement of reasons;                      of the College of Quaestors of the European Parliament of
                                                                        17 April 2000 rejecting the applicant’s request, submitted
—     infringement of the principle of proportionality and of           pursuant to Article 28(2) of the Rules governing the payment
      the applicant’s right to freely exercise its economic             of expenses and allowances to Members, for his non-attend-
      activities;                                                       ance at the January 2000 session of the Parliament to be
                                                                        excused. The reason given for that request was that the
—     failure to comply with the time-limit of 90 days pre-             applicant had to attend the hearing in criminal proceedings
      scribed by Article 10 (3) of Directive 92/27/EEC.                 brought against him.
Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Guidelines on the           In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:
packaging information, which the Commission issued to
clarify the labelling requirements have no legal force. However,        —     incorrect interpretation of the above-mentioned
should these Guidelines nevertheless be considered binding, it                Article 28(2), inasmuch as the rationale for that provision
invokes a plea of illegality pursuant to Article 241 EC as the                is to prevent Members from being penalised where they
Commission had no competence to adopt a rule infringing                       are unable to attend sessions of the Parliament for reasons
fundamental property rights.                                                  beyond their control. More particularly, the applicant
                                                                              maintains that the term ‘serious family circumstances’ is
                                                                              capable of covering all situations in which the person
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying                concerned cannot reasonably be expected to resume his
    down Community procedures for the authorisation and super-                normal activities in the usual way;
    vision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and
    establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal
    Products, OJ 1993 L 214 , p. 1.                                     —     infringement of his right to a fair hearing, which should
(2) Council Directive 92/27/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the labelling             be understood as meaning that a person involved in
    of medicinal products for human use and on package leaflets. OJ           proceedings is entitled to participate personally in those
    1992 L 113, p. 8.                                                         proceedings.


title: Case T-173/01: Action brought on 25 July 2001 by Asahi Vet Sa against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.10.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 289/31
—      adopt such measures as it deems necessary;                          Action brought on 25 July 2001 by Asahi Vet Sa against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
—      order the Commission of the European Communities to
       pay the applicant the costs of the proceedings in their
       entirety.                                                                                (Case T-173/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/71)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant is a joint-enterprise company governed by
Argentinean law, established by a European Communities
undertaking and an Argentinean ship owning company, to                     An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
which the Commission granted aid by decision of 25 July                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
1995 (1). In 1997 the Commission decided to initiate a                     European Communities on 25 July 2001 by Asahi Vet SA of
procedure to reduce the aid granted, without first suspending              Rubı́, Barcelona (Spain), represented by Dr Carsten Bittner.
payment of the balance of the aid by formal decision (2).
On 19 March 2001 the Commission adopted a decision
withdrawing the balance of the aid. The applicant was excluded
from the scope of application of that decision (3).                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     Annul Commission Regulation No 937/2001 of 11 May
Faced with that situation, on 18 May 2001, the applicant                         2001 (1) in so far as it limits the provisional authorisation
formally called upon the Commission to pay the balance of                        of the additives Bacillus cereus var. toyoi (ToyoCerin) for
the aid still outstanding. That request satisfies all the legal                  fattening chickens, laying hens, calves, fattening cattle,
requirements laid down in case-law. The Commission failed to                     fattening rabbits and breeding rabbits to the period up to
define its position with regard to that request within the two-                  1 March 2002;
month period provided for in Article 232 EC.
                                                                           —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant maintains that the Commission was under an
obligation to act, given that it is the body responsible for
ordering the payment of the aid and remitting the Community
funds in question to the Argentinean authorities, who merely
execute the payment. Thus, by failing to answer the said                   Pleas in law and main arguments
request, the Commission failed to fulfil its obligations.
                                                                           The applicant is a subsidiary of the Japanese company Asahi
                                                                           Vet Japan Co. Ltd, which developed the feeding stuff additive
                                                                           ToyoCerin and is the only manufacturer of that additive in the
                                                                           world. The applicant produces the additive for the European
                                                                           market in Spain and distributes it in Europe. In that capacity,
                                                                           the applicant is the applicant in a procedure for Community
(1) Aid granted within the framework of Council Regulation (EEC)           authorisation in respect of the additive ToyoCerin pursuant to
    No 3447/93 of 28 September 1993 on the conclusion of the               Article 3 and following of Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2).
    Agreement between the European Economic Community and the
    Argentine Republic on relations in the sea fisheries sector (OJ
    1993 L 318, p. 1).
(2) The two addressees of the decision to grant the aid (the Com-          The applicant first applied for a Community authorisation in
    munity undertaking and the joint enterprise) then brought an           respect of ToyoCerin for all categories of animal in 1991, and
    action in non-contractual liability, claiming damages on account       a temporary authorisation for ToyoCerin in respect of the
    of the Commission’s unlawful action (Case T-44/01 Eduardo
                                                                           following categories of animal was granted in 1994: rearing
    Vieira and Vieira Argentinav Commission, OJ 1997 C 134, p. 26).
                                                                           pigs, piglets and sows. That temporary authorisation was
(3) The decision was challenged by its addressee, the Community            periodically extended until April 1999. As regards other
    undertaking, in Case T-126/01 Eduardo Vieirav Commission, ECR          animals, such as fattening chickens, cattle and fattening rabbits,
    II-0000.
                                                                           ToyoCerin was authorised on a temporary basis by Regulation
                                                                           (EC) No 1411/1999 (3). That temporary authorisation was
                                                                           extended to 20 February 2001 by Regulation (EC)
                                                                           No 2697/2000 (4). The use of ToyoCerin was not authorised
                                                                           for a period of more than three months under that regulation.
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/32                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.10.2001
The contested regulation granted temporary authorisation for              Action brought on 31 July 2001 by Ferrieri Nord SPA
a limited period, that is to say from 1 June 2001 to 1 March                against the Commission of the European Communities
2002.
                                                                                (Case T-176/01)
The action is directed against the Commission’s regulation
limiting the temporary authorisation of ToyoCerin to the
period ending on 1 March 2002. The applicant claims that the                                       (2001/C 289/72)
brevity of that temporary authorisation following a period
during which no authorisation was extant means that ToyoCe-
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
rin will not be able to be distributed on the market even
though there is an authorisation. It is so short that the duration
of the authorisation only marginally exceeds the sales period
required by feedingstuff manufacturers. Accordingly, the prod-            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
uct cannot in fact be used by the applicant’s purchasers for the          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
manufacture of feedingstuffs.                                             European Communities on 31 July 2001 by Ferriere Nord
                                                                          SPA, represented by Wilma Viscardini and Gabriele Donà,
                                                                          lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicant submits that the contested regulation infringes             ties.
general principles of Community law and also is vitiated by
errors of form. First of all, the regulation infringes the
requirement to give reasons in so far as it does not clearly
show — even though the Commission has no further concerns                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
about renewing the temporary authorisation — why the
authorisation has to be limited to nine months. For example,
                                                                          —     annul, pursuant to Article 230 of the EC Treaty, Com-
two other micro-organisms of the Saccharomyces Cerevisiae
                                                                                mission Decision C(2001) 1010 final of 28 March 2001
type received temporary authorisation for four years under the
                                                                                finding incompatible with the common market the aid
same regulation. The regulation also therefore infringes the
                                                                                granted by the Regione Autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia
general principle of equality and discriminates significantly
                                                                                to Ferriere Nord SPA (worth ITL 1 650 000 000) for
against the applicant’s product — it metes out unequal
                                                                                environmental investments in a new plant for the pro-
treatment which is not justified on objective grounds.
                                                                                duction of electrically welded mesh;
The applicant furthermore claims that the regulation is not               —     order the Commission to pay compensation pursuant to
proportionate and that it does not constitute a measure that is                 Articles 235 and 288(2) of the EC Treaty for the damage
appropriate either to authorise or to prohibit the additive                     suffered by Ferriere Nord SPA as a consequence of the
ToyoCerin. Finally the regulation is contradictory and infringes                illegal decision (c(2001) 1010 final of 28 March 2001)
the principle of proper administration.                                         and the consequent delay in paying the aid illegally
                                                                                cancelled;
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay all costs and fees.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 937/2001 of 11 May 2001
    concerning the authorisation of new additive uses, new additive       Pleas in law and main arguments
    preparation, prolongation of provisional authorisations and the
    10 year authorisation of an additive in feedingstuffs (OJ 2001
    L 130, p. 25).
(2) Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning           The contested decision concerns a production plant, for which
    additives in feedingstuffs (OJ 1970 L 270 p. 1), most recently        the regional aid at issue was requested, capable of bypassing
    amended by Commission Regulation No 45/1999 of 11 Novem-              the cold rolling process (drawing the wire), the straightening
    ber 1999 (OJ 1999 L 6, p. 3).                                         of the wire and its cutting to measure. The new manufacturing
(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1411/1999 of 29 June 1999               process provided for the use of wire with special technical
    concerning the authorisation of new additives and a new additive      characteristics enabling it to be used directly as steel wire in
    usage in feedingstuffs (OJ 1999 L 164, p. 56).                        the process for assembling the mesh. The applicant maintains
(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2697/2000 of 27 November                that the aid should be regarded as an instance of the application
    2000 concerning the provisional authorisation of additives in         of the general aid scheme provided for by Friuli-Venezia Giulia
    feedingstuffs (OJ 2001 L 319, p. 1).                                  Regional Law No 47 of 3 June 1978, as amended by Regional
                                                                          Law No 2 of 20 January 1992. Following the adoption of a
                                                                          number of amendments, the Commission decided not to raise
                                                                          objections under Articles 92 or 93 of the EEC Treaty (now
                                                                          Articles 87 EC and 88 EC) with regard to the 1992 Law.


title: Case T-351/00: Action brought on 20 November 2000 by Hubert Huygens against Commission of the European Communities

text:
27.1.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 28/27
—     The Registry may serve documents by fax or e-mail,                       —     the promotions were decided upon in the absence
      provided that the lawyer or agent concerned has agreed                         of any staff report on the applicant or of any other
      to service being effected in that way.                                         document to palliate its absence;
—     Where the lawyer or agent has agreed to service being                    —     the applicant’s merits were erroneously assessed; and
      effected in that way, the statement of an address for
      service in Luxembonrg is optional.
                                                                               —     the promotions procedure is vitiated by the fact that
                                                                                it was based on reports drawn up on the basis of a
—     There is to be a single, uniform ten-day extension of the                      system of awarding points which disregards the
      time-limit on account of distance, regardless of the                           ‘Guide de la notation’.
      location of the party concerned.
Practice directions concerning the detailed implementation of
these amendments will be issued and promulgated in due
course.
                                                                         Action brought on 21 November 2000 by Jean-Marie Le
                                                                                Pen against European Parliament
Action brought on 20 November 2000 by Hubert Huy-                                                 (Case T-353/00)
 gens against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (2001/C 28/50)
                        (Case T-351/00)
                         (2001/C 28/49)                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: French)                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                         the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         21 November 2000 by Jean-Marie Le Pen, residing in St Cloud
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                (France), represented by François Wagner, of the Nice Bar.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 November 2000 by Hubert
Huygens, residing in Olm (Luxembourg), represented by Sylvie             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Nyssens, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                         —     declare the contested measure null and void;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     award the applicant FRF 50 000 in non-returnable dam-
—     annul the decision of the Commission of the European                     ages;
      Communities not to promote the applicant to Grade B 1
      in the 2000 promotions procedure;
                                                                         —     order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP),
                                                                         contests the decision taken by the President of the European
—     Infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and            Parliament on 23 October 2000 taking note, in accordance
      breach of the rights of the defence inasmuch as no                 with Article 12(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning
      reasons have been provided for the contested decision.             the election of representatives to the European Parliament by
                                                                         direct universal suffrage, of the notification from the French
—     Infringement of Articles 26, 43 and 45 of the Staff                Government of the termination of the term of office of Jean-
      Regulations and breach of the principles of equal treat-           Marie Le Pen as MEP. That decision was taken after he was
      ment and sound administration, inasmuch as:                        found guilty of a criminal offence by a French criminal court.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 September 2001 in Case C-71/99: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Conservation of wild fauna and flora — Article 4(1) — List of sites — Site information)

text:
13.10.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 289/1
                                                                      I
                                                                (Information)
                                                   COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    1.    Declares that, by failing to transmit to the Commission, within
                                                                                the period prescribed, the list of sites mentioned in the first
                                                                                subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                        of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and
                                                                                of wild fauna and flora, together with the information on those
                                                                                sites required by the second subparagraph of Article 4(1)
                                                                                thereof, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                      of 11 September 2001                                      directive;
                                                                          2.    Orders Ireland to bear the costs.
in Case C-67/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                          ties v Ireland (1)                              (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats —
Conservation of wild fauna and flora — Article 4(1) — List
                   of sites — Site information)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (2001/C 289/01)                                                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 11 September 2001
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          in Case C-71/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
In Case C-67/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: R. Wainwright and P. Stancanelli) v Ireland (Agent:              (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
M.A. Buckley, assisted by, H.A. Whelehan and A.M. Collins)                Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats —
— application for a declaration that, by failing to transmit to           Conservation of wild fauna and flora — Article 4(1) — List
the Commission the full list of sites mentioned in the first                                  of sites — Site information)
subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC
of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and                                           (2001/C 289/02)
of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), together
with the information on each site required by the second                                      (Language of the case: German)
subparagraph of Article 4(1) thereof, Ireland has failed to
fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Sixth
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
of the Chamber, V. Skouris, R. Schintgen, F. Macken and                                       in the European Court Reports)
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given           In Case C-71/99: Commission of the European Communities
a judgment on 11 September 2001, in which it:                             (Agents: G. zur Hausen and P. Stancanelli) v Federal Republic
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         13.10.2001
of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and C.-D. Quassowski) —                  Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and D. Colas) — appli-
application for a declaration that, by failing to transmit to the           cation for a declaration that, by failing to transmit to the
Commission the full list of sites mentioned in the first                    Commission the full list of sites mentioned in the first
subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC                 subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC
of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and                  of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and
of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), together                     of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), together
with the information on each site required by the second                    with the information on each site required by the second
subparagraph of Article 4(1) thereof, the Federal Republic of               subparagraph of Article 4(1) thereof, the French Republic has
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive           failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court
— the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann                        (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, R. Schint-              President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, R. Schintgen, F. Macken
gen, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger,                  and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                 H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given
on 11 September 2001, in which it:                                          a judgment on 11 September 2001, in which it:
1.    Declares that, by failing to transmit to the Commission, within       1.    Declares that, by failing to transmit to the Commission, within
      the prescribed period, the list of sites mentioned in the first             the period prescribed, the list of sites mentioned in the first
      subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC                 subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC
      of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and                  of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and
      of wild fauna and flora, together with the information on those             of wild fauna and flora, together with the information on those
      sites required by the second subparagraph of Article 4(1)                   sites required by the second subparagraph of Article 4(1)
      thereof, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its           thereof, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      obligations under that directive;                                           under that directive;
2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear the costs.             2.    Orders the French Republic to bear the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 12 July 2001
                        of 11 September 2001
                                                                            in Case C-262/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-220/99: Commission of the European Communi-                       the Trimeles Diikitiko Protodikio Irakliou): Paraskevas
                      ties v French Republic (1)                                           Louloudakis v Elliniko Dimosio (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      (Directive 83/182/EEC — Means of transport temporarily
Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats —                    imported — Tax exemptions — Normal residence in a
Conservation of wild fauna and flora — Article 4(1) — List                  Member State — Fine for improperly importing exempt from
                    of sites — Site information)                                   tax — Principle of proportionality — Good faith)
                           (2001/C 289/03)                                                              (2001/C 289/04)
                     (Language of the case: French)                                               (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-220/999: Commission of the European Communi-                      In Case C-262/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
ties (Agents: P. Stancanelli and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French               EC from the Trimeles Diikitiko Protodikio Irakliou (Greece),


title: Case T-9/02: Action brought on 22 January 2002 by adidas International B.V., Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. (Rabobank Nederland), DSM Finance B.V., DTG Finance B.V., Heineken N.V., ING Verzekeringen N.V., Koninklĳke Ahold N.V., Landis Group International B.V., Unilever N.V. and Wolters Kluwer N.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
16.3.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 68/19
Action brought on 15 January 2002 by Tetra Laval B.V.                     —    any ‘leveraging’ deriving from the merger — assuming it
  against the Commission of the European Communities                           could be established — would in any event not lead to
                                                                               any market foreclosure of competitors;
                           (Case T-5/02)
                                                                          —    the Commission is wrong to be concerned about the
                                                                               possibility that Tetra Laval, as a result of the merger,
                          (2002/C 68/33)                                       would ‘strengthen its current dominant position in carton
                                                                               packaging by eliminating a source of significant competi-
                    (Language of the case: English)                            tive constraint’, as this ignores the presence of strong
                                                                               competitors in the PET equipment market and the
                                                                               acknowledged lack of dominance of Sidel, as well as the
                                                                               anticipated dynamics of the development of PET;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                —    the Commission failed to show that the merger could
European Communities on 15 January 2002 by Tetra Laval                         lead to any strengthening of a dominant position resulting
B.V., represented by Mr Alexandre Vandencasteele and                           from the merged entity’s ‘future dominant position in
Mr Denis Waelbroeck, of Liederkerke Siméon Wessing Hou-                        two closely neighbouring markets’;
thoff, and Mr Andreas Weitbrecht et Mr Sven Völcker of
Wilmer Cutler & Pickering, Brussels (Belgium).                            —    the Commission’s objections failed to consider alternative
                                                                               packaging materials such as high density polyethylene
                                                                               (HDPE) bottles, glass and cans; and
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —    the Commission failed to demonstrate why the remedies
—     grant the applicant the benefit of an expedited procedure;               offered by the applicant (the divestiture of its stretch blow
                                                                               moulding — SBM — machines and PET preform business,
                                                                               keeping Sidel separate from the Tetra Pak companies for a
—     declare the present application admissible and well-                     period of ten years following the Commission’s clearance
      founded;                                                                 decision, and the granting of a licence of Sidel’s SBM
                                                                               business for sale to customers filling ‘sensitive’ products
—     annul the contested decision in its entirety;                            and for sales to converters) did not eliminate the concerns
                                                                               identified by it.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs of the procedure.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in the present case, an undertaking incorporated            Action brought on 22 January 2002 by adidas Inter-
under the laws of the Netherlands, challenges the Commission              national B.V., Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boeren-
decision which declared a concentration to be incompatible                leenbank B.A. (Rabobank Nederland), DSM Finance B.V.,
with the common market in the Tetra Laval/Sidel case (Case                DTG Finance B.V., Heineken N.V., ING Verzekeringen
No COMP/M.2416). This concentration aims to bring together                N.V., Koninklijke Ahold N.V., Landis Group International
two companies, one, the applicant, active primarily in carton             B.V., Unilever N.V. and Wolters Kluwer N.V. against the
packaging, and the other, Sidel, mainly active in PET (polyester)                 Commission of the European Communities
packaging equipment. According to the applicant, since neither
of the parties is active in the other’s market, the proposed
merger raises no horizontal concerns. Nor does the proposed                                        (Case T-9/02)
merger raise any vertical concerns. It therefore merely raises
potential conglomerate effects.
                                                                                (2002/C 68/34)
In support of its arguments, the applicant submits that:                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
—     the Commission failed to give full access to the file;
—     it is not established that Tetra Laval will, as a result of the     An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      merger, be able to ‘leverage’ its position from the carton          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      market into the PET equipment market;                               European Communities on 22 January 2002 by adidas Inter-
 ---pagebreak--- C 68/20                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.3.2002
national B.V., established in Amsterdam, Coöperatieve Centrale         Action brought on 18 January 2002 by Marie-Claude
Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. (Rabobank Nederland), estab-            Girardot against Commission of the European Com-
lished in Amsterdam, DSM Finance B.V., established in Heerlen                                      munities
(Netherlands), DTG Finance B.V., established in The Hague,
Heineken N.V., established in Amsterdam, ING Verzekeringen
N.V., established in The Hague, Koninklijke Ahold N.V.,                                         (Case T-10/02)
established in Zaandam (Netherlands), Landis Group Inter-
national B.V., established in Utrecht (Netherlands), Unilever                                   (2002/C 68/35)
N.V., established in Rotterdam (Netherlands), and Wolters
Kluwer N.V., established in Amsterdam, all represented by
E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and S.B. Noë, lawyers.                                            (Language of the case: French)
The applicants claim that the Court should:                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities on 18 January 2002 by Marie-Claude
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 11 July 2001 to               Girardot, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
      initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC in
                                                                       avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      respect of aid measure C 51/2001 (ex NN 48/2000) —
      International financing activities;
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                       —     annul the decision of the Commission of 13 March
                                                                             2001 rejecting the applicant’s candidature in respect of
                                                                             COM/R/502310/2001, COM/R/502253/2001, COM/R/
                                                                             508026/2001, COM/R/502529/2001, COM/R/506004/
                                                                             2001, COM/R/502059/2001 and COM/R/502105/2001,
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                             published in the Spécial Recherche vacancy notice of
                                                                             12 February 2001;
By the contested decision, the Commission initiated an investi-        —     annul the decision of the Commission of 15 March
gation procedure concerning new State aid in respect of the                  2001 rejecting the applicant’s candidature in respect of
Netherlands fiscal legislation relating to international group               COM/2001/CCR16/R, published in the Spécial CCR
financing activities (‘the CFA regime’). In their application in             vacancy notice of 9 February 2001;
the present proceedings, the applicants deny that any new
State aid is involved.                                                 —     annul the appointments made to the abovementioned
                                                                             posts;
                                                                       —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The applicants plead infringement of Article 88 of the EC
Treaty and of Regulation No 659/1999, inasmuch as the
Commission should have initiated the procedure in relation to
existing aid rather than that in respect of new aid. According
to the applicants, it was not until after the CFA regime was           Pleas in law and main arguments
introduced in 1997 that the Commission proceeded to regard
such measures as constituting aid. As evidence of this, the
applicants refer to the Commission’s observations of 1984 and          According to the applicant, the Commission added a new
1987 in relation to notification of a similar system by the            condition for the admission of candidates to posts, refusing
Belgian Government, and also to the fact that the Belgian              her candidature on the ground that the post is only available
system is currently being investigated in accordance with the          to staff covered by the Staff Regulations. Since that condition
procedure for existing aid.                                            does not appear in the vacancy notices, the applicant submits
                                                                       that it infringes the terms of those notices and alleges
                                                                       infringement of Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff Regulations
                                                                       inasmuch as the Commission has not organised a competition
The applicants further claim that the contested decision               for those posts. The applicant also alleges manifest error of
violates the principle of equality, the general duty of care and       assessment and infringement of Article 27 of the Staff
the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.            Regulations in that the Commission did not take account of
Moreover, no sufficient statement of reasons has been given            the applicant’s qualifications. Finally, the applicant claims that
for the classification of the measure as new State aid.                a statement of reasons has not been provided for the contested
                                                                       decisions.


title: Appeal brought on 29 December 1997 by Deutsche Bahn AG against the judgment delivered on 21 October 1997 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-229/94 between Deutsche Bahn AG and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-436/97 P)

text:
C 94/6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28.3.98
The power allowed to Member States to derogate from                  Ð Infringement of the evidential principles of the rule of
the principle of the unity of excise duties (taxes and                   law, applicable in penal proceedings, that the
structure) and maintain or create additional national                    imposition of severe penalties may not be based on an
charges for specific purposes in respect of a single product             assessment of the evidence which manifestly violates
or a single category of products may only be construed                   the rules of thought and logic. The appellant submits
strictly. Any other construction would undermine the                     in the present appeal that the contradictions which
effectiveness of Community legislation on products subject               have been pointed out in the contested judgment are
to duty since it would give rise to the establishment of                 manifest and follow from the Court of First Instance's
parallel' national indirect taxation which would call in                own findings, so that there is no need for any further
question the objectives of Directive 92/12/EEC in the                    examination of the facts by the Court of Justice.
context of the internal market.
                                                                     Ð Infringement of the principle of the rule of law in
(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1.                                            dubio pro reo, which states that in penal proceedings
(2) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 29.                                         full proof of the offence is required and doubts and
                                                                         uncertainties regarding the evidence must be assessed
                                                                         in favour of the accused and exclude the imposition of
                                                                         penalties. The presumption of innocence is a
                                                                         fundamental principle which corresponds to the
                                                                         generally accepted view of the rule of law and is
Appeal brought on 29 December 1997 by Deutsche Bahn                      furthermore codified in Article 6(2) of the European
AG against the judgment delivered on 21 October 1997                     Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the                       Fundamental Freedoms, and hence to be respected by
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                   the European Union via Article F(2) of the EU Treaty
Case T-229/94 between Deutsche Bahn AG and the                           as a fundamental right. The in dubio pro reo principle
          Commission of the European Communities                         applies not only in the field of criminal law in the
                      (Case C-436/97 P)                                  strict sense, but also in the law of administrative
                                                                         offences.
                         (98/C 94/12)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997, p. 14.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 21 October
1997 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Case T-229/94 between Deutsche Bahn AG and the
Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities              Appeal brought on 30 December 1997 by Wirtschaftsver-
on 29 December 1997 by Deutsche Bahn AG, represented                 einigung Stahl, Thyssen Stahl AG, Preussag Stahl AG and
by Jochim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, of Deringer, Tessin,               Hoogovens Staal BV against the judgment delivered on
Herrmann & Sedemund, Berlin, with an address for                     24 October 1997 by the First Chamber, Extended
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,                 Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
31 Grand Rue.                                                        European Communities in Case T-244/94 between Wirt-
                                                                     schaftsvereinigung Stahl, Thyssen Stahl AG, Preussag Stahl
The appellant claims that the Court should:                          AG and Hoogovens Groep BV and the Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities, supported by the Council of the
Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance     of       European Union, the Italian Republic and Ilva Laminati
     the European Communities of 21 October 1997 (1)         in                                Piani SpA
     Case T-229/94 Deutsche Bahn AG v. Commission,           in                            (Case C-441/97 P)
     so far as it dismissed the application for annulment   of
                                                                                (98/C 94/13)
     Articles 2 to 4 of the Commission's decision           of
     29 March 1994 (IV/33.941 Ð HOV-SVZ/MCN),
                                                                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 October
Ð annul Articles 2 to 4 of the said Commission Decision,             1997 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
                                                                     Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                             Case T-244/94 between Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl,
                                                                     Thyssen Stahl AG, Preussag Stahl AG and Hoogovens
                                                                     Groep BV and the Commission of the European
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Communities, supported by the Council of the European
                                                                     Union, the Italian Republic and Ilva Laminati Piani SpA
Ð Infringement of the principle of the rule of law,                  was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     applicable in penal proceedings generally, that the             Communities on 30 December 1997 by Wirtschaftsvereini-
     offence complained of must be sufficiently certain to           gung Stahl, Thyssen Stahl AG, Preussag Stahl AG and
     make the necessary proof and examination of that                Hoogovens Staal BV (formerly Hoogovens Groep BV),
     proof possible at all; infringement of the general              represented by Jochim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, of
     obligation to state reasons, which applies to courts            Deringer, Tessin, Herrmann & Sedemund, Berlin, and Erik
     too.                                                            H. Pijnacker Hordijk, Advocaat, of De Brauw, Blackstone,


C 55/18                EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                        8.3.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-359/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-486/99 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/34)                                                         (2003/C 55/37)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 19 November 2002 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-359/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-486/99 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Autogolf Srl v Ministero          ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Flos SpA and Others v
delle Finanze.                                                         Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.                                            (1 ) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.
        Removal from the register of Case C-360/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-487/99 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/35)                                                         (2003/C 55/38)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 19 November 2002 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-360/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-487/99 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Union Factor SpA and              ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Petra SpA v Ministero delle
Others v Ministero delle Finanze.                                      Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.                                            (1 ) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.
        Removal from the register of Case C-485/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-488/99 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/36)                                                         (2003/C 55/39)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 19 November 2002 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-485/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-488/99 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Gottinghen SpA and Others         ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Supercar Srl v Ministero
v Ministero delle Finanze.                                             delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.                                            (1 ) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.


title: Case C-126/02: Action brought on 8 April 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
C 144/20               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        15.6.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
                                                                                its obligations under that directive, in particular Article 27
1.    declare null and void the terminations of guarantee                       thereof;
      notified by HDI on 30 October and 13 and 20 November
      2001;                                                               —     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
2.    order HDI to pay damages amounting to EUR 44 556,84
      to offset the expenditure incurred by the Parliament in
      respect of additional insurance cover to replace the                Pleas in law and main arguments
      guarantees wrongfully terminated by the defendant and
      all other connected expenditure, together with interest
      calculated at the legal rate of interest, it being understood       The time-limit for transposition, extended by one year on
      that all accidents occurring during 2002 will be declared           account of the specific characteristics of Belgium’s electricity
      to HDI on the basis of the policies wrongfully terminated;          network, expired on 19 February 2000, but Belgium has not
                                                                          adopted all the requisite measures, particularly as regards the
                                                                          appointment of the network manager (as provided for in
3.    order the defendant to pay the costs.                               Article 10 of the Belgian Law on the organisation of the
                                                                          electricity market).
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           (1) OJ L 27 of 30.1.1997, p. 20.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case C-123/02.
                                                                          Appeal brought on 8 April 2002 by Bernhard Schulte
                                                                          against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2002 by the
                                                                          Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities in Case T-261/94 between
                                                                          Bernhard Schulte and the Council of the European Union
                                                                              and the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 8 April 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                             Belgium                                                              (Case C-128/02 P)
                         (Case C-126/02)                                                           (2002/C 144/34)
                         (2002/C 144/33)
                                                                          An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2002
                                                                          by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities in Case T-261/94 between Bernhard
                                                                          Schulte and the Council of the European Union and the
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before               Commission of the European Communities (1) was brought
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       8 April 2002 by Bernhard Schulte, represented by Reinhard
represented by R. Tricot, acting as Agent, with an address for            Freise, Rechtsanwalt and Notar, Salzkotten.
service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                         —     set aside the judgment under appeal;
—     declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations         —     order the respondents to pay the appellant compensation,
      and administrative measures necessary in order to comply                  quantified by him to be at least DEM 30 000, plus interest
      with Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament                        of 5 % per annum from 1 December 1989, for the
      and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning                         damage suffered by him as a result of the unlawful refusal
      common rules for the internal market in electricity (1), or               to grant him the reference delivery quantities for which
      at any rate by failing to communicate the same to the                     he applied.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 12 May 1998 in Case C-85/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Landessozialgericht): María Martínez Sala v Freistaat Bayern (Articles 8a, 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty - Definition of 'worker' - Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Child-raising allowance - Definition of 'family benefit' - Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Definition of 'social advantage' - Requirement of possession of a residence permit or authorisation)

text:
C 234/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.7.98
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of
                                                                          30 October 1989 and as a social advantage within the
                       of 12 May 1998
                                                                          meaning of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
in Case C-85/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of
the Bayerisches Landessozialgericht): María Martínez Sala                 movement for workers within the Community.
                     v Freistaat Bayern (1)
(Articles 8a, 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty Ð Definition of
worker' Ð Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 Ð                2. It is for the referring court to determine whether a
Child-raising allowance Ð Definition of family benefit'                  person such as the appellant in the main proceedings
Ð Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 Ð                           comes within the scope ratione personae of Article 48
Definition of social advantage' Ð Requirement of                         of the EC Treaty and of Regulation No 1612/68 or of
      possession of a residence permit or authorisation)                  Regulation No 1408/71.
                        (98/C 234/06)
                                                                     3. Community law precludes a Member State from
               (Language of the case: German)                             requiring nationals of other Member States authorised
                                                                          to reside in its territory to produce a formal residence
                                                                          permit issued by the national authorities in order to
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be             receive a child-raising allowance, whereas that
          published in the European Court Reports)                        Member State's own nationals are only required to be
                                                                          permanently or ordinarily resident in that Member
                                                                          State.
In Case C-85/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Bayerisches Landessozialgericht
                                                                     (1) OJ C 145 of 18.5.1996.
(Higher Social Court of Bavaria) (Germany), for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between María Martínez Sala and Freistaat Bayern
Ð on the interpretation of Articles 1, 2, 3(1) and 4(1)(h)
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
on the application of social security schemes to employed
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
families moving within the Community, as amended and
updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230 of 13.8.1983, p. 6), as                                           of 12 May 1998
amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of
30 October 1989 (OJ 1989 L 331 of 13.8.1983, p. 1), and              in Case C-106/96: United Kingdom of Great Britain and
of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68               Northern Ireland, supported by Federal Republic of
of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers                Germany, by Council of the European Union and by
within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968               Kingdom of Denmark, v Commission of the European
(II), p. 475) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez                Communities, supported by the European Parliament (1)
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm and M.
Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C.              (Community action programme to combat social exclusion
Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,                                   Ð Funding Ð Legal basis)
D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G.
                                                                                (98/C 234/07)
Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La Pergola,
Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 May 1998,
in which it has ruled:                                                               (Language of the case: English)
1. A benefit such as the child-raising allowance provided
     for by the Bundeserziehungsgeldgesetz, which is                 In Case C-106/96: United Kingdom of Great Britain and
     automatically granted to persons fulfilling certain             Northern Ireland (Agent: John E. Collins, assisted by
     objective criteria, without any individual and                  Derrick Wyatt), supported by Federal Republic of
     discretionary assessment of personal needs, and which           Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder and Bernd Kloke), by
     is intended to meet family expenses, falls within the           Council of the European Union (Agents: Jill Aussant and
     scope ratione materiae of Community law as a family             FeÂlix van Craeyenest) and by Kingdom of Denmark
     benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(h) of                (Agents: Peter Biering and Jùrgen Molde) v Commission
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June                  of the European Communities (Agents: Maria Patakia and
     1971 on the application of social security schemes to           Peter Oliver), supported by the European Parliament
     employed persons, to self-employed persons and to               (Agents: Christian Pennera and Auke Baas) Ð application
     members of their families moving within the                     for annulment of the decision or decisions referred to in
     Community, as amended and updated by Council                    the Commission's press release of 23 January 1996 (IP/96/
     Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, as                  67) announcing certain grants for European projects