title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 5 November 1997 in Case T-149/95: Établissements J. Richard Ducros v. Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Restructuring aid - Commission decision - Annulment - Admissibility)

text:
20 . 12 . 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 387/ 17
sector (Ilva group ) ( OJ 1994 L 112, p. 64 ) — the Court of               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended Composition ),                                          of 5 November 1997
composed of: A. Saggio, President, A. Kalogeropoulos, V.
Tiili, A. Potocki and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H.                      in Case T- 149/95 : Etablissements J. Richard Ducros v.
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 October                              Commission of the European Communities (')
1997, in which it:
                                                                         (State aid — Restructuring aid — Commission decision —
                                                                                Annulment — Admissibility)
1 . dismisses the application;                                                                        ( 97/C 387/29 )
2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs of the defendant                              (Language of the case: French)
     and of the intervener Ilva Laminati Piani SpA;
                                                                         In Case T-149/95 : Etablissements J. Richard Ducros,
                                                                         established in Paris, represented by Philippe Genin, of the
3 . orders the Council and the Italian Republic to bear                  Lyons Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     their own costs.
                                                                         the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v.
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities, ( Agents :
(>) OJ C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .                                           initially Jean-Paul Keppenne, then Xavier Lewis )
                                                                         supported by CMF S.p.A. and CMF Sud S.p.A. ,
                                                                         established in Pignatero Maggiore, Italy, represented by
                                                                         Mario Siragusa , of the Rome Bar, and Giuseppe
                                                                         Scassellati-Sforzolini , of the Bologna Bar, with an address
                                                                         for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs
                                                                         Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill —
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Application for annulment of the decision reproduced in
                         of 5 November 1997                              Commission Notice 95/C 120/03 pursuant to Article 93 ( 2 )
                                                                         of the EC Treaty to other Member States and other parties
in Case T-26/89 ( 125 ): Henri de Compte v. European                     concerned regarding aid which Italy granted to CMF Sud
                              Parliament (')                             S.p.A. and CMF S.p.A. [ State aid C 6/92 ( ex NN 149/91 )]
                                                                         ( OJ C 120, 16 . 5 . 1995 , p. 4 ) — the Court of
    (Officials — Application for revision — Admissibility)               First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended Composition ),
                              ( 97/C 387/28 )                            composed of: A. Saggio, President, C. P. Briët, A.
                                                                         Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges;
                                                                         B. Pastor, Principal Administrator for the Registrar; has
                   (Language of the case: French)                        given a judgment on 5 November 1997, in which it :
In Case T-26/89 ( 125 ): Henri de Compte, a former official               1 . dismisses the application;
of the European Parliament, represented initially by
Francesco Pasetti Bombardella, of the Venice Bar, and                    2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those
subsequently by Henri Ferretti, of the Thionville Bar, with                   of the interveners.
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Guy Harles, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. European
                                                                         (') OJ C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
Parliament ( Agents : Francois Vainker and Evelyn
Waldherr) — application for revision of the judgment of
the Court of First Instance of 17 October 1991 in Case
T-26/89 de Compte v. European Parliament [ 1991 ] ECR
11-781 — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),
composed of: A. Saggio, President, B. Vesterdorf and R. M.
Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
judgment on 5 November 1997, the operative part of
which is as follows :                                                                               ( First Chamber)
                                                                                of 5 November 1997
 1 . the application for revision is dismissed as being                  in Case T-12/97: Anna Barnett v. Commission of the
      inadmissible;                                                                          European Communities (')
                                                                              (Officials — Article 31 (2) of the Staff Regulations)
 2 . the applicant seeking revision is ordered to pay the                                              ( 97/C 387/30 )
      costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 (') OJ C 89 , 6 . 4 . 1988 .
                                                                          In Case T-12/97: Anna Barnett, official of the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) of 21 February 1995 in Case T-506/93: Andrew Macrae Moat v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Promotion - Consultation of staff reports - Complaint - Failure to give a reasoned reply - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Compensation for damage)

text:
No C 101 /6           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  22 . 4 . 95
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      (Fourth Chamber)                                                    (Fourth Chamber)
                     of 21 February 1995                                                of 23 February 1995
in Case T-506/93 : Andrew Macrae Moat v. Commission of              in Case T-535/93 : F. v. Council of the European
                the European Communities (*)                                                    Union i 1 )
(Officials — Promotion — Consultation of staffreports —             (Officials — Recruitment — Refusal of employment on
Complaint — Failure to give a reasoned reply — Action for           account ofphysical unfitness — Right to a fair hearing —
annulment — Admissibility — Compensation for                                        Manifest error of assessment)
                             damage)                                                         ( 95/C 101 /17
                         ( 95/C 101/16 )
                                                                                (Language of tbe case: French)
                                                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
               (Language of the case: Englisb)                               published in thé European Court Reports)
                                                                    In Case T-535/93 : F, residing at Esbjerg ( Denmark ),
                                                                    represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                    address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire
In Case T-506/93 : Andrew Macrae Moat, an official of the
                                                                    Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Council of the European
Commission of the European Communities, represented by              Union (Agent: O. Petersen) — application for the annulment
Luc Govaert, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service       of the decision of the Council of 6 November 1992 not to
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong, 14a Rue               recruit the applicant on account of a lack of physical fitness
des Bains, v. Commission of the European Communities                to perform typing duties, adopted in consequence of the
(Agent: T. F. Cusack) — application for the annulment of            medical officer's opinion, confirmed by the medical
various decisions of the Commission appointing and
                                                                    committee, declaring the applicant physically unfit, and for
promoting officials and for compensation for the damage
                                                                    the annulment, in so far as may be necessary, of the decision
allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of the failure       rejecting the applicant's complaint — the Court of First
to give a reasoned reply to his two complaints and of his not
                                                                    Instance (Fourth Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët,
having been appointed or promoted — the Court of First              President, and A. Saggio and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; J.
Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,               Palacio Gonzalez, Registrar, has given a judgment on
President, R. Schintgen and R. Garcia-Valdecasas, Judges,
                                                                    23 February 1995 , in which it:
B. Pastor, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 21 February 1 995 , in which it:                        1 , dismisses the application;
                                                                    2 , orders the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay
                                                                        those of the applicant and half of the costs of the
1 , dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it           intervener;
    seeks, first, the annulment of the decisions of the
    Commission making promotions to grade A3 for 1991               3 , orders the intervener to bear half of its own costs.
    and 1992 and making an appointment to the post of
                                                                    (M OJ No C 325 , 9 . 12 . 1993 .
    head of unit which was the subject of Vacancy Notice
    COM/22/92, and secondly, the award of damages for
    the unlawful acts allegedly committed in the course of
    those procedures;                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 March 1995
                                                                    in Case T-514/93 : Cobrecaf SA and Others v. Commission
2 , dismisses the remainder of the application as                                 of the European Communities (*)
    unfounded;                                                      (Fisheries — Community financial assistance for the
                                                                    construction of fishing vessels — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                    No 4028/86 — Admissibility — Confirmatory decision —
3 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                          Action for damages)
                                                                                ( 95/C 101/18 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(!) OJ No C 277, 15 . 10 . 1993 .
                                                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                    In Case T-514/93 : Cobrecaf SA, whose registered office is in
                                                                    Concarneau ( France), Pêche et Froid SA, whose registered


title: Case C-436/12 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — Veolia Acqua Compagnia Generale delle Acque srl, in liquidation v European Commission, Italian Republic (Appeal — State aid — Aid to undertakings established in the territory of Venice and Chioggia)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/51

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — Veolia Acqua Compagnia Generale delle Acque srl, in liquidation v European Commission, Italian Republic
   (Case C-436/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Aid to undertakings established in the territory of Venice and Chioggia)
   2013/C 225/91
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Veolia Acqua Compagnia Generale delle Acque srl, in liquidation (represented by: A. Vianello, A. Bortoluzzi and A. Veglianiti, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and D. Grespan, acting as Agents), Italian Republic

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 in Case T-264/00 Compagnia Generale delle Acque v Commission, by which that court dismissed an action for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws No 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50) — Whether intra Community trade is affected — Impact on competition — Extent of control — Burden of proof — Duty to state reasons

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Veolia Acqua Compagnia Generale delle Acque srl shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.


title: Case T-175/12: Action brought on 12 April 2012 — Deutsche Börse v Commission

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/25

         Action brought on 12 April 2012 — Deutsche Börse v Commission
   (Case T-175/12)
   2012/C 174/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Börse AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: C. Zschocke, J. Beninca and T. Schwarze, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission Decision COMP/M.6166 Deutsche Börse/NYSE Euronext of 1 February 2012; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of this application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to properly assess the horizontal competitive constraints to which the parties are subject to, alleging that the Commission’s consideration of over-the-counter (‘OTC’) derivatives trading and its claim that the constraints the parties supposedly exercise on each other’s exchange fees was vitiated by errors of law and assessment. In addition, the Commission’s claim that the parties constrain each other through innovation competition is manifestly incorrect and its analysis of competition among trading platforms was not based on cogent and consistent evidence. Furthermore, the Commission failed to properly consider the demand-side constraints because it failed to analyze and assess the crucial role of the parties’ customers among which are the main participants of OTC trading, and to carry out any quantitative analysis.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s assessment of the parties’ efficiencies claims was vitiated by manifest errors and not supported by cogent and consistent evidence. The Commission inaccurately accepted only some of the efficiencies as verifiable, merger-specific and likely to directly benefit customers, and incorrectly claimed that they were insufficient to counteract the competitive effects of the merger. In relation to its evaluation of both collateral savings and liquidity benefits, the Commission violated the parties’ right to be heard by relying on evidence and arguments introduced after the oral hearing on which the parties were not given opportunity to comment. The Commission’s ‘claw back’ theory and its assessment of the merger-specificity of collateral savings were based on new theories and requirements that are not supported by the Commission’s Horizontal Merger Guidelines (1).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to properly assess the remedies offered by the parties. The rejection of the commitment concerning the full divestiture of NYX’ (the applicant and NYSE Euronext) overlapping single equity derivatives business, including the divestiture of NYX’ BClear facility, was based on incorrect evidence. The alleged ‘symbiotic relationship’ between single equity and equity index derivatives does not exist, contradicts the Commission’s own market definition analysis, and was raised in violation of the parties’ right of defence. The Commission’s rejection of the software licensing commitment is vitiated by error and contradicts its conclusions regarding technology competition.

      (1)  Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 C 31, p. 5)


title: Case T-108/99: Action brought on 3 May 1999 by Gemma Reggimenti against the European Parliament

text:
C 226/32               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.8.1999
In support of her claim, the applicant pleads:                          Pleas in law and main arguments
— infringement of Articles 4, 27, 28 and 29 of the Staff                By court decision dated 24 December 1991, the Tribunal de
    Regulations and of Annex III thereto;                               Première Instance (Court of First Instance), Brussels, awarded
                                                                        custody of the daughter of the applicant, an official of the
                                                                        European Parliament, to her former husband and ordered
— infringement of Article 7 of the Protocol (No 2) annexed              the applicant to pay, with effect from 29 January 1990,
    to the Treaty of Amsterdam;                                         8 000 Belgian francs per month by way of contribution to the
                                                                        maintenance of the child, in addition to the amount of the
— breach of the principle of equal treatment and of non-                extended family allowances paid by the European Communi-
    discrimination;                                                     ties.
                                                                        By decision of 15 December 1997, the Juvenile Court of the
— infringement of the second paragraph of Article 24(1) of              Abruzzi awarded custody of the applicant’s daughter to her
    the Merger Treaty;                                                  uncle and aunt with effect from 29 August 1997.
— infringement of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations; and              By letter of 1 April 1998, the European Parliament informed
                                                                        the applicant, inter alia, that payment of the family allowances
— misuse of powers and abuse of procedure.                              to the girl’s uncle and aunt could not commence until the first
                                                                        day of the month following the court decision of 15 December
                                                                        1997, that is to say, 1 January 1998.
                                                                        By its contested decision, the European Parliament refused to
                                                                        pay the family allowances in respect of the girl to her uncle
                                                                        and aunt for the period from 29 August 1997 up to and
                                                                        including 31 December 1997; in its view, the date to be taken
                                                                        into account for the purposes of the payment of family
                                                                        allowances to a third person is the date of delivery of the court
Action brought on 3 May 1999 by Gemma Reggimenti                        decision.
              against the European Parliament
                                                                        The applicant maintains that that decision was adopted in
                                                                        breach of Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Annex VII to the Staff
                        (Case T-108/99)                                 Regulations. In accordance with those articles, the point in
                                                                        time which is to be taken into consideration for the purposes
                                                                        of payment of the allowances to a third person is the date on
                        (1999/C 226/57)                                 which the child is effectively entrusted to the care of that
                                                                        person by the court decision, even where the decision itself is
                                                                        not delivered until months or even years later. Moreover, it
                  (Language of the case: French)                        must be borne in mind that decision made in family law cases
                                                                        almost always have retroactive effect.
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of Firs Instance of the European Communities on
3 May 1999 by Gemma Reggimenti, residing in Brussels,
represented by Claudine Junion, lawyer, Brussels, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christine          Action brought on 3 May 1999 by Josée Bollendorff
Nabozny, 3 Rue Mathias Tresch.                                                         against the European Parliament
                                                                                (Case T-110/99)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (1999/C 226/58)
— annul the decision adopted by the European Parliament on
    18 June 1998 in so far as it refuses the payment to Mr and                             (Language of the case: French)
    Mrs Reggimenti of family allowances for the period from
    29 August 1997 to 31 December 1997;                                 An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 3
— annul the decision of 1 February 1999 rejecting the                   May 1999 by Josée Bollendorff, residing in Luxembourg,
    complaint as unfounded;                                             represented by Laurent Mosar, of the Luxembourg Bar, with
                                                                        an address for service at his Chambers, 8 Rue Notre-Dame,
— order the European Parliament to comply with the judg-                Luxembourg.
    ment to be delivered, by paying to Mr and Mrs Reggimenti
    family allowances for the period from 29 August 1997 to             The applicant claims that the Court should:
    31 December 1997, plus default interest at the rate                 — annul the decision by which the appointing authority took
    prescribed by law:                                                       the view that the applicant’s absence from 3 September to
                                                                             15 September 1998 was irregular and deducted 68.50
— order the European Parliament to pay the cost.                             working hours from her annual leave entitlement;


title: Case T-87/14: Action brought on 7 February 2014 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/30

         Action brought on 7 February 2014 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council
   (Case T-87/14)
   2014/C 129/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (Tehran, Iran); Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL) (Tehran); Khazar Shipping Lines (Anzali Free Zone, Iran); IRISL Europe GmbH (Hamburg, Germany); IRISL Marine Services and Engineering Co. (Qeshm Island, Iran); Irano Misr Shipping Co. (Tehran); Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines (SAPID) (Tehran); Shipping Computer Services Co. (Tehran); Soroush Sarzamin Asatir Ship Management (Tehran); South Way Shipping Agency Co. Ltd (Tehran); et Valfajr 8th Shipping Line Co. (Tehran) (represented by: F. Randolph, QC, M. Lester, Barrister, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2013/685/CFSP of 26 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 316, p. 46) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1203/2013 of 26 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 316, p. 1), in so far as they apply to the applicants;

               —

               Declare the inapplicability as regards Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 272, p. 46) and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 272, p. 1);

               —

               Order the Council to pay the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants rely on the ‘objection of illegality’ in seeking to have the October Measures declared unlawful in that: they lack a proper legal basis; violate the applicants’ legitimate expectations, and the principles of finality, legal certainty, non bis in idem, and res judicata; they discriminate against IRISL and violate its fundamental rights without justification or proportion; breach the applicants’ rights of defence; and are an abuse of the Council’s powers.
   The applicants rely on the following grounds for the annulment of the Contested Measures.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that there is no proper legal basis for the Contested Measures.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has erred manifestly in its decisions to include each of the applicants.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicants’ rights of defence.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures breach the applicants’ legitimate expectations, and the principles of finality, legal certainty, res judicata, non bis in idem, and non-discrimination.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures violate, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ fundamental rights, in particular their right to reputation and to respect for their property.


C 247/28              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                26.8.2000
       Removal from the register of Case C-405/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-417/98 P (1)
                         (2000/C 247/43)                                                     (2000/C 247/47)
By order of 4 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 10 May 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-405/99: Commission of the European            the register of Case C-417/98 P: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                    Communities v Primex Produkte Import-Export GmbH & Co.
                                                                     KG, Gebr. Kruse GmbH Kai Interporc Im- und Export GmbH.
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-426/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-156/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 247/44)
                                                                                (2000/C 247/48)
By order of 6 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             By order of 10 May 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-426/99 (reference for a preliminary           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ruling from the Oberlandesgericht, Düsseldorf): Connaught            the register of Case C-156/99: Commission of the European
Laboratories Inc. v SmithKline Beecham Pharma GmbH and               Communities v French Republic.
SmithKline Beecham Biologicals Manufacturing SA.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-355/99 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-168/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 247/45)                                                     (2000/C 247/49)
By order of 7 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 11 May 2000 the President of the First Chamber
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
the register of Case C-355/99: Commission of the European            ordered the removal from the register of Case C-168/99:
Communities v Ireland.                                               Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
                                                                     Spain.
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-412/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 247/46)                                    Removal from the register of Case C-229/99 (1)
By order of 18 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice                              (2000/C 247/50)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-412/99: Commission of the European            By order of 15 May 2000 the President of the First Chamber
Communities v Republic of Austria.                                   of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
                                                                     ordered the removal from the register of Case C-229/99:
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                            Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.


title: Case C-76/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 June 2007 — Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Fines — Preceding business year for determining the turnover on which the calculation of the fine is based)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 June 2007 — Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-76/06 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Fines - ‘Preceding business year’ for determining the turnover on which the calculation of the fine is based)
   (2007/C 170/11)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd (represented by: S. Mobley and M. Commons, solicitors)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, Agent)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 29 November 2005 in Case T-33/02 Britannia Alloys and Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the European Communities, dismissing as unfounded an application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2001)4237 final of 11 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/E-1/37.027 — Zinc phosphate) or, in the alternative, reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant — Infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62 — Breach of the principles of equality and legal certainty
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


title: Case C-434/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Criminal proceedings against Jan-Erik Anders Ahokainen, Mati Leppik (Free movement of goods — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — National legislation prohibiting, without prior authorisation, the importation of undenatured ethyl alcohol of an alcoholic strength of more than 80 % — Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction — Justification on the grounds of protection of public health and public order)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Criminal proceedings against Jan-Erik Anders Ahokainen, Mati Leppik
   (Case C-434/04) (1)

   (Free movement of goods - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - National legislation prohibiting, without prior authorisation, the importation of undenatured ethyl alcohol of an alcoholic strength of more than 80 % - Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction - Justification on the grounds of protection of public health and public order)
   (2006/C 294/14)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Korkein oikeus
   Parties in the main proceedings
   Jan-Erik Anders Ahokainen, Mati Leppik
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein oikeus — Interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC with respect to national legislation subjecting the importation of non-denatured ethyl alcohol of over 80 % to prior authorisation
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 28 EC and 30 EC do not preclude a system, such as that laid down by Law No 1143/1994 on alcohol (Alkoholilaki (1143/1994)), which makes the importation of undenatured ethyl alcohol of an alcoholic strength of more than 80 % subject to obtaining prior authorisation, unless it appears that, in the circumstances of law and of fact which characterise the situation in the Member State concerned, the protection of public health and public order against the harm caused by alcohol can be secured by measures having less effect on intra-Community trade.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 04.12.2004.


title: Case T-259/99: Action brought on 26 October 1999 by Tankstation Jagt B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 6/34                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8.1.2000
Action brought on 22 October 1999 by Gebr. Jongste B.V.                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        (a) declare the application admissible;
                         (Case T-249/99)                                (b) annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
                                                                             of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
                          (2000/C 6/60)                                      Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
                                                                             Germany;
                                                                        (c) order the Commission to pay the costs.
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               Pleas in law and main arguments
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 October 1999 by Gebr. Jongste                This case is linked to Case T-210/99. The applicant pleads,
B.V., of Ouderkerk aan den Ijssel (Netherlands), represented by         inter alia, infringement of the principle of the protection of
R. van Gelder, of the Voorschoten Bar.                                  legitimate expectations and claims that the reasons for the
                                                                        decision are incomprehensible, since it has passed the subsidy
                                                                        on to its customers, who are therefore the real recipients
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             thereof.
(a) annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
     of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the                (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
     Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
     Germany, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant;
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Action brought on 26 October 1999 by Tankstation Jagt
                                                                        B.V. against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
T-210/99.                                                                                (Case T-259/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 6/62)
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 26 October 1999 by Tankstation
                                                                        Jagt B.V., of Coevorden (Netherlands), represented by
                                                                        J.J.L.M. Johanninck, of the Coevorden Bar.
Action brought on 25 October 1999 by Oliehandel Van
den Belt B.V. against the Commission of the European
                          Communities                                   The applicant claims that the Court should annul the Com-
                                                                        mission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1) of 20 July 1999
                                                                        concerning State aid granted by the Netherlands to 633 service
                         (Case T-253/99)                                stations in the region bordering Germany, in so far as it
                                                                        concerns the applicant.
                          (2000/C 6/61)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
                                                                        T-210/99.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
European Communities on 25 October 1999 by Oliehandel
Van den Belt B.V., of Drachten (Netherlands), represented by
J.F. Verwilligen, of the Drachten Bar.


title: Case C-547/08: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 21 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/33

         Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 21 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-547/08) (1)

   2009/C 282/60

      Language of the case: Swedish

   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Assigning of Judges to Chambers

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/17

         Assigning of Judges to Chambers
   (2008/C 197/29)
   On 19 and 25 September 2007 the Court of First Instance decided to establish eight Chambers of five Judges and eight Chambers of three Judges for the period from 25 September 2007 to 31 August 2010.
   On 8 July 2008 the Court of First Instance decided to change the assignment of the Judges for the period from 1 October 2008 to 31 August 2010 as follows:
   First Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:
   Ms Tiili, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Ms Jürimäe and Mr Soldevila Fragoso, Judges.
   First Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Ms Tiili, President of the Chamber;
   Mr Dehousse, Judge;
   Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judge.
   Second Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:
   Ms Pelikánová, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Ms Jürimäe and Mr Soldevila Fragoso, Judges.
   Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Ms Pelikánová, President of the Chamber;
   Ms Jürimäe, Judge;
   Mr Soldevila Fragoso, Judge.
   Third Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Azizi, President of the Chamber, Mr Cooke, Ms Cremona, Ms Labucka and Mr Frimodt Nielsen, Judges.
   Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Azizi, President of the Chamber;
   Ms Cremona, Judge;
   Mr Frimodt Nielsen, Judge.
   Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Czúcz, President of the Chamber, Mr Cooke, Ms Cremona, Ms Labucka and Mr Frimodt Nielsen, Judges.
   Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Czúcz, President of the Chamber;
   Mr Cooke, Judge;
   Ms Labucka, Judge.
   Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Vilaras, President of the Chamber, Mr Šváby, Mr Prek, Mr Moavero Milanesi and Mr Ciucă, Judges.
   Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Vilaras, President of the Chamber;
   Mr Prek, Judge;
   Mr Ciucă, Judge.
   Sixth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Meij, President of the Chamber, Mr Vadapalas, Mr Papasavvas, Mr Wahl, Mr Tchipev, Mr Dittrich and Mr Truchot, Judges.
   Sixth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Meij, President of the Chamber;

               (a)

               Mr Vadapalas and Mr Tchipev, Judges;

               (b)

               Mr Vadapalas and Mr Truchot, Judges;

               (c)

               Mr Tchipev and Mr Truchot, Judges.

         Seventh Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Forwood, President of the Chamber, Mr Šváby, Mr Moavero Milanesi, Mr Prek and Mr Ciucă, Judges.
   Seventh Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Forwood, President of the Chamber;
   Mr Šváby, Judge;
   Mr Moavero Milanesi, Judge.
   Eighth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:
   Ms Martins Ribeiro, President of the Chamber, Mr Vadapalas, Mr Papasavvas, Mr Wahl, Mr Tchipev, Mr Dittrich and Mr Truchot, Judges.
   Eighth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Ms Martins Ribeiro, President of the Chamber;

               (a)

               Mr Papasavvas and Mr Wahl, Judges.

               (b)

               Mr Papasavvas and Mr Dittrich, Judges.

               (c)

               Mr Wahl and Mr Dittrich, Judges

         In the Sixth and Eighth Chambers (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges, the Judges who will sit with the President of the Chamber to make up the formation of five Judges will be the three Judges of the Chamber initially hearing the case, the fourth Judge of that Chamber and one Judge of the other Chamber composed of four Judges. The latter, who will not be the President of the Chamber, will be designated for one year in turn in the order provided for by Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.
   In the Sixth and Eighth Chambers sitting with three Judges, the President of the Chamber will sit with the Judges referred to at (a), (b) or (c) above in turn, depending on the formation to which the Judge-Rapporteur belongs. For cases in which the President of the Chamber is the Judge-Rapporteur, the President of the Chamber will sit with the Judges of each of those formations alternately in accordance with the order in which the cases are registered, subject to the existence of connected cases
   Appeal Chamber
   On 8 July 2008 the Court of First Instance decided that, for the period from 1 October 2008 to 30 September 2009, the Appeal Chamber will be composed of the President of the Court and, in rotation, two Presidents of Chambers.
   The Judges who will sit with the President of the Appeal Chamber to make up the extended formation of five Judges will be the three Judges of the formation initially hearing the case and, in rotation, two Presidents of Chambers.
   Criteria for the assigning of cases to the Chambers
   On 8 July 2008 the Court of First Instance laid down the following criteria for the assignment of cases to the Chambers for the period from 1 October 2008 to 30 September 2009, in accordance with Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure:

               1.

               Appeals against the decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal shall be assigned, as soon as the application has been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure, to the Appeal Chamber.

               2.

               Cases other than those referred to in paragraph 1 above shall be assigned, as soon as the application has been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure, to Chambers of three Judges.
               Cases referred to in this paragraph shall be allocated to the Chambers in turn, in step with the date on which they are registered at the Registry, following three separate rotas:

                           —

                           for cases concerning application of the competition rules applicable to undertakings, the rules on State aid and the rules on trade protection measures;

                           —

                           for cases concerning the intellectual property rights referred to in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure;

                           —

                           for all other cases.

                     In applying those rotas, the two Chambers sitting with three Judges which are composed of four Judges shall be taken into consideration twice at each third turn.
               The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate from the rotas on the ground that cases are related or with a view to ensuring an even spread of the workload.


title: Case C-83/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen — Sweden) — Fonnship A/S, Svenska Transportarbetareförbundet v Svenska Transportarbetareförbundet, Fonnship A/S, Facket för Service och Kommunikation (SEKO) (Maritime transport — Freedom to provide services — Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 — Applicability to transport carried out from or to States that are parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) using vessels flying the flag of a third country — Industrial action taken in the ports of such a State in favour of third country nationals employed on those vessels — Nationality of those workers and vessels having no bearing on the applicability of EU law)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen — Sweden) — Fonnship A/S, Svenska Transportarbetareförbundet v Svenska Transportarbetareförbundet, Fonnship A/S, Facket för Service och Kommunikation (SEKO)
   (Case C-83/13) (1)

   ((Maritime transport - Freedom to provide services - Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 - Applicability to transport carried out from or to States that are parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) using vessels flying the flag of a third country - Industrial action taken in the ports of such a State in favour of third country nationals employed on those vessels - Nationality of those workers and vessels having no bearing on the applicability of EU law))
   2014/C 315/13
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Arbetsdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Fonnship A/S, Svenska Transportarbetareförbundet

      Defendants: Svenska Transportarbetareförbundet, Fonnship A/S, Facket för Service och ommunikation (SEKO)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries must be interpreted as meaning that a company established in a State that is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 and which is proprietor of a vessel flying the flag of a third country, by which maritime transport services are provided from or to a State that is a party to the EEA Agreement, may rely on the freedom to provide services, provided that it can, due to its operation of that vessel, be classed as a provider of those services and that the persons for whom the services are intended are established in States that are parties to the EEA Agreement other than that in which that company is established.

      (1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.


title: Case C-248/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 9 June 2004 in the case of Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A. against Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 9 June 2004 in the case of Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A. against Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   (Case C-248/04)
   (2004/C 217/23)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative court for trade and industry) of 9 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 11 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A. against Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Minister for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality) on the following questions:

               1.

               If the possibility of remission under Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 (1), now replaced by Article 239 of the Community Customs Code, is not applicable to levies on C sugar as in the present action, are Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 (2) of 30 June 1981 on the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 (3) of 14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production wholly or partly invalid in view of the absence of the possibility of repaying or remitting levies on C sugar on equitable grounds?

               2.

               If so, does the legal liability to the levy on C sugar no longer apply, or may the competent authority of the Member State concerned and/or the Commission decide not to impose the levy on quantities of C sugar in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81, if the party liable for the levy cannot be accused of any deception or negligence which may have contributed to the fact that the export of those quantities intended by him has not taken place and that in the interests of an investigation by the national authorities into infringements and irregularities that party has not been informed of the investigation referred to?

      (1)  OJ L 175 of 12.7.1979, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 177 of 1.7.1981, p. 4.

      (3)  OJ L 262 of 16.9.1981, p. 14.


title: Action brought on 1 August 1996 by Lilly Industries Ltd against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-120/96)

text:
No C 318 / 12         EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26 . 10 . 96
Regulation (EEC ) No 2423/88 , by the institutions' refusal to      — order the Commission to pay the costs .
use the applicant's profit margin in computing the
applicant's constructed normal value . Rather, the
institutions have used the profit margin which they                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
computed for other producers . The refusal in question is to
be considered as a result of several arbitrary or illogical         The applicant is the developer of a veterinary medicinal
determinations, such as:                                            product called Optiflex 640, which is a recombinant bovine
                                                                    somatotrophin ( BST ) used for administration to dairy cows
                                                                    as a productivity aid to milk production. Owing to the fact
— the determination that the profit margin on a company's           that this is a product derived from biotechnology, it is
    profitable domestic sales in the exporting country              subject to the procedure for marketing authorization laid
    cannot be used to compute the company's constructed             down in Council Directive 87/22/EEC and also to the
    normal value if such company's profitable domestic              Community procedure for establishing maximum residue
    sales represent less than 10% in volume ( but not               limits ( MRLs ) of veterinary medicinal products in
    turnover ) of its total domestic sales,
                                                                    foodstuffs of animal origin laid down in Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                    No 2377/90 ('the Regulation '). Member States are not to
— the determination that the applicant's cost of production         authorize the placing on the market of a veterinary
    should be increased by percentage points (to such an            medicinal product unless, inter alia, the active substance
    extent that, as a result, the applicant's profitable            capable of pharmacological action is mentioned in Annex I
    domestic sales happened to represent slightly less than         ( substances in respect of which MRLs have been
    10% in volume — but not turnover — of its total                 established ), II ( substances in respect of which it is not
    domestic sales ) on arbitrary and illogical grounds .           necessary for the protection of public health to establish an
                                                                    MRL ) or III ( substances in respect of which a provisional
The institutions have also infringed Article 2 ( 3 ) of Council     MRL is applicable ) to the Regulation .
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 in refusing to apply the
' OEM adjustment' in the determination of the applicant's           The applicant challenges in the present case the refusal by
constructed normal value . Even though, according to the            the Commission to add BST to the products figuring in
applicant, the substantive conditions for the application of        Annex II, and submits that the contested decision should be
the ' OEM adjustment' were met, the institutions have               annulled on the following grounds :
confused the ' OEM adjustment', which they are required to
make pursuant to Article 2 ( 3 ), with a claim for allowances       — Infringement of the Community procedure for the
under Article 2 ( 10 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 .               establishment of MLRs, as laid down in Article 6 of the
                                                                        Regulation .
                                                                        The Commission 's decision was based on confusion
                                                                         between the concept of MRLs and marketing
                                                                        authorizations and on an incorrect interpretation of the
                                                                         Council Decision imposing a moratorium on BST. There
                                                                        is nothing in the Regulation to suggest that the
Action brought on 1 August 1996 by Lilly Industries Ltd                 establishment of an MRL is subject to the condition that
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    the substance will immediately benefit from a marketing
                       ( Case T-120/96 )                                authorization, so that an MRL could be obtained for
                          96/C 318/25 )                                 products which, purely provisionally, may not be placed
                                                                         on the market owing to the existence of a moratorium.
                                                                        The applicant stresses in this regard that some uses of
               (Language of the case: English)                           BST are still possible even now and that there is therefore
                                                                        already a need to establish an MRL.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   — Misuse of powers and breach of the principle of legal
Instance of the European Communities on 1 August 1996 by                certainty.
Lilly Industries Ltd, represented by Denis Waelbroeck, of
the Brussels Bar, of Liedekerke Wolters Waelbroeck &                    The contested decision runs counter to the assurances
Kirkpatrick, 3 boulevard de PEmpereur, Brussels, with an                given in the past that the Commission would apply solely
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Arendt &            traditional criteria of safety, quality and efficacy in
Medernach, boite postale 39, L-2010 Luxembourg.                         assessing veterinary products in the biotechnology
                                                                         sector, to the assurances specifically given to the
                                                                         applicant that an MRL would soon be established for
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             Somidobove and to the conditions prescribed in the
                                                                         Regulation, inasmuch as the defendant was not entitled
— annul the Commission Decision of 22 May 1996                          to refuse to grant an MRL for reasons other than the
    concerning a definition of a position, in accordance with            safety of the product.
    Article 175 of the EC Treaty, on the inclusion of bovine
    somatotrophin in Annex II to Council Regulation ( EEC )         — Infringement of Article 2 of the Council Decision
    No 2377/90 ,                                                        amending Decision 90/218/EEC, concerning the placing
 ---pagebreak--- 26 . 10 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 318 / 13
    on the market and administration of BST ('the                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
    moratorium') and breach of the principle of
     proportionality .                                                On 1 December 1995 the Commission adopted Regulation
                                                                      ( EEC ) No 2781 /95 on the transport for the free supply to
    The latest renewal of the moratorium on BST expressly             Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Tajikistan of rye
     permits Member States to 'carry out limited practical            flour .
     tests on the use of bovine somatotrophin'. Furthermore,
     the moratorium nowhere prohibits the placing on the              The transport of one of the lots was awarded to the
     market of products obtained from tested animals . It is          applicant. Annexed to the award was a schedule of 10 points
     solely concerned with BST and not with the sale of               containing extracts from the agreement between the
     foodstuffs obtained from treated animals . It appears de         European Community and the Georgian authorities . After
     facto disproportionate to inhibit the ability of academic        delivery the Commission sent to the applicant a statement of
     institutions to obtain free access, for the purpose of           account which concerned, inter alia, costs of dispatch to be
     clinical trials, to a product whose use in animals is            paid to the Georgian authorities . The applicant objects that
     recognized scientifically as harmless to humans, and to          no reference is made anywhere to the dispatch rate, not even
     require healthy animals to be sacrificed in such a               in the award and in the memorandum concerning the
     situation .                                                      abovementioned agreement. The applicant therefore
                                                                      considers that the costs of dispatch do not have to be paid to
— Infringement of the Final Act embodying the results                 the Georgian authorities and protests against a number of
     of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade                       decisions in which those costs are stated to be for its
     Negotiations .                                                   account .
     In the applicant's view, the Commission's decision
     refusing to proceed with the inclusion of BST in Annex II
     to the Regulation may seriously affect non-EC producers
     who request an authorization to place on the market
     foodstuffs from animals treated with BST.
                                                                      Action brought on 8 August 1996 by Service pour le
                                                                      groupement d'acquisitions ( SGA ) against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-123 /96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 318 /27 )
Action brought on 2 August 1996 by Mutual Aid
Administration Services NV against the Commission of the                              (Language of the case: French)
                     European Communities
                        ( Case T-121 /96 )                            An action against the Commission of the European
                          ( 96/C 318/26 )                             Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 8 August 1 996 by
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                        Service pour le groupement d'acquisitions ( SGA ),
                                                                      established at Istres ( France ), represented by Jean Claude
                                                                      Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
An action against the Commission of the European                      Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 rue
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     Beatrix de Bourbon .
Instance of the European Communities on 2 August 1 996 by
Mutual Aid Administration Services NV, of Antwerp
( Belgium ), represented by J. Tritsmans, of the Antwerp Bar,         The applicant claims that the Court should :
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of R. Faltz, 6 rue Heinrich Heine .                                   — annul the Commission 's decision notified to SGA on
                                                                          5 Tune 1996 not to investigate the complaint lodged on
                                                                          4 July 1994 ,
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      — declare, in accordance with Article 215 of the EC Treaty,
— annul the contested decision(s ), a copy of which is                    that the Commission has incurred non-contractual
     included in the documents annexed to the application,
                                                                          liability and caused SGA damage which must be made
     and consequently hold that the applicant is not obliged
                                                                          good, and, as a consequence, award SGA the sum of
     to pay the costs of dispatch to the Georgian
                                                                           ECU 360 000 by way of compensation,
     authorities,
— order the Commission of the European Communities to                 — order the Commission to pay the costs .
     proceed to repay to the applicant the sum of US$
     21 967,19 together with interest, calculated at the               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
     current statutory rate in Belgium of 8 % per annum,
      since 30 July 1996 ,                                             SGA operates as an intermediary in the distribution of all
                                                                       makes of automobiles, undertaking parallel imports solely
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                              as agent for the final consumer, in accordance with


title: Case C-19/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Pisa — Sezione Lavoro — by order of that court of 19 December 2000 in the case of INPS v Alberto Barsotti and Others

text:
C 79/18                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.3.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-                ‘Whether Directive 80/987/EEC (1) and the judgments relating
of by order of that court of 30 November 2000 in the                    to it (judgments in Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 of
     case of Finanzamt Sulingen against Walter Sudholz                  13 November 1991 and Case C-373/95 of 10 July 1997) may
                                                                        be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the ceiling imposed,
                                                                        it is lawful to prohibit aggregation of the compensation
                          (Case C-17/01)                                awarded by the Guarantee Fund and part of the wages paid by
                                                                        the employer in the last three months only as regards the
                          (2001/C 79/31)                                amount exceeding that represented by the level of the indennita
                                                                        di mobilità (job-seeker’s allowance) provided for, ratione
                                                                        temporis, in respect of the same period, in view of the fact that
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  the said advances appear, like the job seeker’s allowance and
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                    up to the same amount, to be intended to cover the primary
(Federal Finance Court) of 30 November 2000, received at the            needs of the dismissed worker.’
Court Registry on 15 January 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Finanzamt Sulingen against Walter Sudholz on
the following questions:                                                (1) OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23 (Council directive of 20 October 1980).
1.    Is Article 2 of the Council Decision 2000/186/EC (1) of
      28 February 2000 authorising the Federal Republic of
      Germany to apply measures derogating from Articles 6
      and 17 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the
      harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
      to turnover taxes — common system of value added tax:             Action brought on 18 January 2001 by Kingdom of Spain
      uniform basis of assessment invalid because the procedure             against Commission of the European Communities
      prior to the adoption of the decision did not meet the
      criteria laid down in Article 27 of Directive 77/388/EEC?
                                                                                (Case C-22/01)
2.    Is the first paragraph of Article 3 of Decision
      2000/186/EC, under which the decision is to have                                           (2001/C 79/33)
      retroactive effect from 1 April 1999, valid?
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
3.    Does Article 2 of Decision 2000/186/EC meet the                   ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      substantive requirements to be applied to such an author-         Communities on 18 January 2001 by the Kingdom of Spain,
      isation, and do any objections to the validity of that            represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, acting as Agent, with
      provision arise as a consequence?                                 an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
( 1) OJ L 59 of 4.3.2000, p. 12.
                                                                        —     annul the point relating to anchovies referred to in note
                                                                              (2) to the item relating to stocks of ‘Anchovy; Zone: IX,
                                                                              X, CECAF 34.1.1’ contained in Annex Id to Council
                                                                              Regulation (EC) No 2848/2000 (1) of 15 December 2000
                                                                              fixing for 2001 the fishing opportunities and associated
                                                                              conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish
                                                                              stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Com-
                                                                              munity vessels, in waters where limitations in catch are
                                                                              required; and
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Pisa — Sezione Lavoro — by order of that court of                       —     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
19 December 2000 in the case of INPS v Alberto Barsotti
                             and Others
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case C-19/01)
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
                                                                        forward in Case C-81/00 (2) except in so far as concerns the
                          (2001/C 79/32)                                TAC for anchovy fixed by the Council in Zone VIII which for
                                                                        2001 is of 33 000 metric tonnes.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Labour Division of              (1) OJ 2000 L 334, p. 1.
the Tribunale di Pisa (District Court, Pisa) of 19 December             (2) OJ 2000 C 176, p. 4.
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 15 January
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of INPS v Alberto
Barsotti and Others, on the following question:


title: Action brought on 7 August 1998 by UPS Europe NV/SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-127/98)

text:
7.11.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 340/25
Finally the applicant claims that its right to a fair hearing       On 19 December 1997 the Commission sent a letter
has been disregarded, given that, at no time during the             pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation No 99/
pre-litigation procedure did the Commission respect its             63/EEC in which it stated that it had concluded that there
fundamental right to be heard.                                      were no grounds for granting the application in so far as
                                                                    Article 86 of the EC Treaty was concerned. In its letter of
                                                                    2 February 1998 the applicant submitted its observations
(1) OJ L 364 of 12.12.1992, p. 7.
(2) OJ C 205 of 5.7.1997, p. 5.                                     to this Article 6 letter' by reiterating its objections to the
                                                                    intention of the Commission to reject its complaint. It
                                                                    asked the Commission to reject the complaint by formal
                                                                    decision within a reasonable time and in any event before
                                                                    15 March 1998.
                                                                    On 2 June 1998 the applicant formally invited the
Action brought on 7 August 1998 by UPS Europe NV/SA                 Commission to make a final decision with regard to its
   against the Commission of the European Communities               complaint under Article 86 of the EC Treaty and
                       (Case T-127/98)                              announced that it would initiate an action for failure to
                                                                    act under Article 175 of the EC Treaty if the Commission
                        (98/C 340/48)                               did not inform the applicant of its decision within two
                                                                    months from the date of that letter. As the Commission
                                                                    has not delivered the requested final decision, the present
               (Language of the case: English)                      application has been submitted to the Court.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 7 August 1998
by UPS Europe SA/NV, represented by Tom R.
Ottervanger and Dirk Arts, with an address for service in           Action brought on 31 August 1998 by Armement
Luxembourg at the offices of Loeff Claeys Verbeke, 5 rue            CoopeÂratif Artisanal VendeÂen (ACAV) and Others against
Charles Martel.                                                                    Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-138/98)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                  (98/C 340/49)
Ð declare in accordance with Article 175           of the EC                       (Language of the case: French)
     Treaty that the Commission has failed to      act by not
     having delivered a decision on the            applicant's      An action against the Council of the European Union was
     complaint lodged with the Commission          on 7 July        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
     1994;                                                          Communities on 31 August 1998 by Armement
                                                                    CoopeÂratif Artisanal VendeÂen (ACAV) and Others,
                                                                    established in Ile d'Yeu (France), represented by Lise
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the             Funck-Bretano and SteÂphanie Ponsot, of the Paris Bar,
     applicant in the present proceedings; and                      with an Address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                    Chambers of Jacques Neuer, 9 Avenue Guillaume.
Ð take such further action as the Court may deem
     appropriate.                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Ð annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98;
                                                                    Ð order the Council to pay all the costs.
On 7 July 1994, the applicant, part of the United Parcel
Service' (UPS) group of companies, which is active
worldwide in the business of parcel delivery, lodged a              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
complaint with the Commission asking it to initiate
proceedings against Deutsche Bundespostdienst (now                  On 8 June 1998 the Council adopted the contested
Deutsche Post AG). In its complaint, the applicant, apart           regulation prohibiting, with effect from 1 January 2002,
from alleging unlawful State aid by the Member State                the use of drift-nets for the capture of certain species of
Germany, identified conduct of Deutsche Post AG which,              fish, including white tuna, by vessels flying the flag of a
in its opinion, infringes Article 86 of the EC Treaty. The          Member State, in particular in the North-East Atlantic.
applicant is of the opinion that the Deutsche Post AG is
engaged both in predatory pricing practices and in using
cross-subsidies to extend a dominant position from the              The applicants, all fishermen from the Ile d'Yeu, who fish
letter market to the related parcel market.                         for those species, in particular using that type of net,


title: Case T-239/99: Action brought on 18 October 1999 by J.J.L. Alofs, trading as Auto Service Center Alofs, against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
8.1.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 6/31
The Commission further infringed its duty to clarify the facts           Action brought on 15 October 1999 by P.C.P. van Oppen-
in a neutral and unprejudiced manner, by giving preference to            Veger, trading as Service Station formerly operating as
Bundesverband deutscher Banken over other parties concerned              J.P. Veger, against the Commission of the European
and presenting the facts in a biased way. The Decision infringes                                   Communities
the obligation to state reasons under Article 253 EC. A
central part of the Decision, the determination of ‘reasonable
                                                                                (Case T-238/99)
remuneration’ at 12 % after tax, is not comprehensible and
the bases of the calculation are not evident. The Commission
also fails to distinguish between the indicative figures for                                       (2000/C 6/55)
return on equity (RoE) and return on investment (RoI) and
confuses rates of return before tax with rates after tax. The
reference to the Crédit Lyonnais decision as a starting-point                               (Language of the Case: Dutch)
for the rate of return used does not satisfy the requirement to
state reasons. Finally, the Commission in the Decision fails
to address essential arguments of the Federal Republic of                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Germany.                                                                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 15 October 1999 by P.C.P. van
                                                                         Oppen-Veger, trading as Service Station formerly operating
                                                                         as J.P. Veger, of Maria Hoop (Netherlands), represented by
                                                                         P.J.M. Brouwers, of the Meerssen Bar.
The Commission based the Decision on a fundamentally                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
incorrect approach by applying for the first time the criterion
of an ’average return’ as the minimum expected return to a               (a) annul, at least in part, the Commission’s decision (C(1999)
capital injection from public funds in a profitably operating                2539 final) (1) of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted
public undertaking. It thus exceeded its powers to control aid.              by the Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region
Article 295 EC protects the business activity of the public                  bordering Germany;
sector and thus restricts inter alia the Commission’s jurisdiction
with respect to the application of Article 87(1) EC. Business            (b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
activity of the State excludes the presence of ’aid granted
through State resources’ within the meaning of Article 87(1)
EC in the case of profitable undertakings. The Commission,               Pleas in law and main arguments
extending the concept of aid too far, wrongly applies the
criterion of the capital investor acting in market-economy
conditions to capital injections in profitably operating under-          The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
takings. The public sector as investor is allowed a broad margin         T-210/99.
of discretion for capital injections in profitably operating
undertakings.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
The Commission impermissibly requires an average return as
a minimum expected return for capital injections from public
funds. In so doing the Commission disregards the particular
structure and business activity of WestLB and the particular             Action brought on 18 October 1999 by J.J.L. Alofs, trading
objectives and legal form of the Wfa assets. The Wfa assets              as Auto Service Center Alofs, against the Commission of
absorbed are not comparable with capital which may be freely                              the European Communities
invested but are earmarked for public house-building support
and are directed to the public good rather than to making a
profit. By integrating the Wfa into WestLB, considerable                                          (Case T-239/99)
synergy effects have been achieved.
                                                                                (2000/C 6/56)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 18 October 1999 by J.J.L. Alofs,
                                                                         trading as Auto Service Center Alofs, of Arnhem (Netherlands),
                                                                         represented by S.C. Struycken-Veenhoff, of the Nijmegen Bar.
 ---pagebreak--- C 6/32                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8.1.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Pleas in law and main arguments
(a) annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission’s decision
    (C(1999) 2539 final) (1) of 20 July 1999 concerning State           The applicant pleads, first of all, that he was denied his right
    aid granted by the Netherlands to 633 service stations in           to a fair hearing, submitting:
    the region bordering Germany.
                                                                        (a) that the third paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Staff Regulations has been infringed, in that the authority
                                                                             empowered to conclude contracts (‘the Authority’) failed
                                                                             to meet the time-limit laid down by that provision, without
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case                  furnishing any explanation to justify that failure;
T-210/99.
                                                                        (b) that the rules of sound administration with regard to
                                                                             personnel management have been infringed, inasmuch as:
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                             — one of the three members called on to exercise jointly,
                                                                                by delegation, the powers of the Authority had also
                                                                                acted when the Authority, exercising its powers by
                                                                                delegation, adopted an initial disciplinary measure
                                                                                which was subsequently withdrawn, so that his objec-
                                                                                tivity and impartiality was not beyond doubt;
Action brought on 19 October 1999 by Antonio Pernice                         — the contested decision was adopted without the Auth-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                             ority having studied either the applicant’s comments
                                                                                on the draft minutes of the hearing held pursuant to
                                                                                the third paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the
                        (Case T-241/99)                                          Staff Regulations or the pleas and arguments in defence
                                                                                put forward both before the Disciplinary Board and in
                         (2000/C 6/57)                                           the course of the abovementioned hearing; and
                                                                        (c) that Article 2 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and
                  (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                             Article 25 of the Staff Regulations have been infringed, in
                                                                             that the alleged failures by the applicant to comply with
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    his obligations under the first paragraph of Article 11 and
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   the first paragraph of Article 12 of the Staff Regulations
European Communities on 19 October 1999 by Antonio                           were not disclosed to him in due time, a fact which
Pernice, resident in Torre d’Isola, Italy, represented by Jean-              prevented him from putting forward his grounds of
Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere,                  defence.
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, ‘Um Piquet’,
2-4 Rue Beck.
                                                                        The applicant also submits that the contested decision is
                                                                        vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, inasmuch as the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             truth of the evidence against him was not established or, at the
                                                                        very least, the view taken as to the facts was manifestly
                                                                        exaggerated having regard to the circumstances. Furthermore,
— annul the Commission decision of 22 December 1998                     the Authority offended against the principle of proportionality
    imposing upon him the disciplinary measure of termin-               by imposing a disciplinary measure on him which was out of
    ation without notice of his contract as a temporary                 proportion to the degree of seriousness of his alleged failures to
    member of staff, with effect from 1 January 1999;                   comply with his obligations, failures which, in the unanimous
                                                                        opinion of the members of the Disciplinary Board, justify only
— order the Commission to pay him compensation assessed                 a mild penalty, namely a reprimand.
    on an equitable basis at EUR 250 000 for the material and
    non-pecuniary damage suffered following a series of faults
    on the part of the institution;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.