title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 10 September 1996 in Case C-277/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam): Z. Taflan-Met, S. Altun-Baser and E. Andal-Bugdayci v. Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank, and O. Akol v. Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision of the Association Council - Social Security - Entry into force - Direct effect)

text:
No C 354/2            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                         23 . 11 . 96
p. 1 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias ,          United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under
President, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur )         Article 2 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) and Article 3 ( 2 ) of that Directive — the
and G. Hirsch, Presidents of Chambers , G. F. Mancini , J. C.        Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann and                C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G.
J. L. Murray, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General ; D.              Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C.
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                   Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), C.
Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 September 1 996 , in which          Gulmann , J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and L.
it :                                                                 Sevón, Judges ; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; D.
                                                                     Louterman-Hubeau , Principal Administrator, for the
1 . declares that, by authorizing the importation under              Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 September 1996 , in
                                                                     which it :
     inward processing reliefarrangements of dairy products
     whose customs value was lower than the minimum
     prices set under the International Dairy Arrangement,           1 . declares that, by adopting, with respect to satellite
     approved on behalf of the Community by Council                       broadcasts, the criteria set forth in section 43 of the
     Decision 80/271 /EEC of 10 December 1 979 concerning                 Broadcasting Act 1990 for the purpose of determining
     the conclusion of the Multilateral Agreements resulting              which satellite broadcasters fall under the jurisdiction of
     from the 1973 to 1979 trade negotiations, the Federal                the United Kingdom and, in the context of that
     Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations             jurisdiction, by applying different regimes to domestic
     under Article 6 (1 ) (a) of Annex I and Article 6 (a) of             satellite services and non-domestic satellite services, and
     Annexes II and III to that Arrangement, and under                    by exercising control over broadcasts which are
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 of 16 July 1985                  transmitted by broadcasters falling under the
     on inward processing relief arrangements;                            jurisdiction of other Member States when those
                                                                          broadcasts are transmitted by a non-domestic satellite
2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                           service or conveyed to the public as a licensable
                                                                          programme service, the United Kingdom has failed to
                                                                          fulfil its obligations under Article 2 (1 ) and (2) and
3 . orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                     Article 3 (2) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of
     costs .
                                                                          3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain
                                                                          provisions laid down by law, regulation or
(') OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .                                          administrative action in Member States concerning the
                                                                          pursuit of television broadcasting activities;
                                                                     2 . orders the United Kingdom to pay the costs;
                                                                     3 . orders the French Republic to pay its own costs .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                     of 10 September 1996                            (') OJ No C 275 , 1.10 . 1994 .
in Case C-222/94: Commission of the European
Communities , supported by French Republic, v. United
     Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( ! )
 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 89/552/EEC —
 Telecommunications — Television broadcasting —
                Jurisdiction over broadcasters)                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( 96/C 354/03 )                                                   of 10 September 1996
                                                                         in Case C-277/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
                (Language of the case: English)                      from the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam ): Z.
                                                                     Taflan-Met, S. Altun-Baser and E. Andal-Bugdayci v.
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank, and O. Akol v.
         published in the European Court Reports)                       Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging (')
                                                                     (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision of the
In Case C-222/94 : Commission of the European                        Association Council — Social Security — Entry into force —
 Communities ( Agents : Christopher Docksey and Berend Jan                                        Direct effect)
Drijber ), supported by the French Republic ( Agents : Edwige                                    ( 96/C 354/04 )
 Belliard and Jean-Louis Falconi ), against the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agent:                                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
John E. Collins, assisted by Stephen Richards and Rhodri
Thompson ) — application for a declaration that, by failing
 to implement correctly Council Directive 89/552/EEC of              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions                      published in the European Court Reports)
 laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
 Member States concerning the pursuit of television                  In Case C-277/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 broadcasting activities ( OJ No L 298 , 1989 , p. 23 ), the         of the EC Treaty by the Arrondissementsrechtbank [District
 ---pagebreak--- 23 . 11 . 96          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 354/3
Court], Amsterdam, tor a preliminary ruling in the                  coordination of certain provisions laid down by law,
proceedings pending before that court between Z.                    regulation or administrative action in Member States
Taflan-Met, S. Altun-Baser, E. Andal-Bugdayci and Bestuur           concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities
van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank, and between O. Akol and            ( OJ No L 298 , 1989 , p. 23 ), in particular Articles 2 , 14 and
Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging, on the           15 thereof — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
interpretation of Articles 12 and 13 of Decision No 3/80 of         Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.
the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the                 Puissochet and G. Hirsch, Presidents of Chambers, G. F.
application of the social security schemes of the Member            Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn
States of the European Communities to Turkish workers               ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H.
and members of their families ( OJ No C 110 , 1983 , p. 60 ),       Ragnemalm          and      L. Sevón,   Judges;      C. O. Lenz,
the Court composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,         Advocate-General ;         D. Louterman-Hubeau,         Principal
D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ), J. -P. Puissochet and G.            Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , J. C.            10 September 1996 , in which it :
Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann and
J. L. Murray, Judges, Advocate-General : A. La Pergola,
Registrar: H. A. Rühl , Principal Administrator, has given a        1 . declares that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
judgment on 10 September 1996 in which it rules :                        its obligations under Council Directive 89/552/EEC of
                                                                         3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain
                                                                         provisions laid down by law, regulation or
1 . Decision No 3/80 of the Association Council of                       administrative action in Member States concerning the
     19 September 1980 on the application of the social                  pursuit oftelevision broadcasting activities, in particular
     security schemes of the Member States of the European               Articles 2 , 14 and 15 thereof,
     Communities to Turkish workers and members of their
     families entered into force on the date on which it was             — as regards the French Community, by maintaining,
     adopted, namely 19 September 1980, and has been                         in the French-speaking region, a system of prior
     binding on the Contracting Parties since then.                          authorization for the retransmission by cable of
                                                                             television broadscasts emanating from other
                                                                             Member States;
2 . So long as the supplementary measures essential for
     implementing Decision No 3/80 have not been adopted
     by the Council, Articles 12 and 13 of that decision do              — as regards the French Community, by maintaining,
     not have direct effect in the territory of the Member                   in the French-speaking region, a system of express,
     States and are therefore not such as to entitle individuals             conditional       prior    authorization     for      the
     to rely on them before the national courts.                             retransmission by cable of television broadcasts
                                                                             emanating from other Member States which contain
                                                                             commercial advertising or teleshopping programmes
(') OJ No C 370 , 21 . 12 . 1994 .                                           especially intended for viewers in the French
                                                                              Community;
                                                                         — as regards the Flemish community, by maintaining,
                                                                             in the Dutch-speaking region, a system of prior
                                                                             authorization for the retransmission by cable of
                                                                              television broadcasts emanating from other Member
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         States;
                    of 10 September 1996
in    Case    C-11/95 : Commission of the              European          — as regards the bilingual Metropolitan Region of
           Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium ( 1 )                            Brussels, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                             and administrative measures necessary to comply
 (Directive 89/552/EEC — Transmission ofprogrammes by                         with Article 2 (2) of Directive 89/552;
                              cable)
                         ( 96/C 354/05 )                                 — as regards the French Community, by failing to
                                                                              adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
                (Language of the case: French)                                measures necessary to comply fully with Articles 14
                                                                              and 15 of Directive 89/552 ;
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                  2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
In Case C-11 /95 : Commission of the European                        3 . orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Communities ( Agent: Pieter van Nuffel ) v. Kingdom of
Belgium ( Agent: Jan Devadder, assisted by Alain                     (') OJ No C 54 , 4 . 3 . 1995 .
Berenboom ) — application for a declaration that the
Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under
 Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the


title: Joined Cases C-159/12 to C-161/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Alessandra Venturini v ASL Varese and Others (C-159/12), Maria Rosa Gramegna v ASL Lodi and Others (C-160/12), Anna Muzzio v ASL Pavia and Others (C-161/12) (Freedom of establishment — Article 49 TFEU — Public health — National legislation prohibiting para-pharmacies from selling prescription-only medicinal products the cost of which is borne by the patient)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Alessandra Venturini v ASL Varese and Others (C-159/12), Maria Rosa Gramegna v ASL Lodi and Others (C-160/12), Anna Muzzio v ASL Pavia and Others (C-161/12)
   (Joined Cases C-159/12 to C-161/12) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Public health - National legislation prohibiting para-pharmacies from selling prescription-only medicinal products the cost of which is borne by the patient)
   2014/C 45/14
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Alessandra Venturini (C-159/12), Maria Rosa Gramegna (C-160/12), Anna Muzzio (C-161/12)

      Defendants: ASL Varese, Ministero della Salute, Regione Lombardia, Comune di Saronno, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) (C-159/12), ASL Lodi, Ministero della Salute, Regione Lombardia, Comune di Sant’Angelo Lodigiano, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) (C-160/12), ASL Pavia, Ministero della Salute, Regione Lombardia, Comune di Bereguardo, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)(C-161/12)

      Intervener: Federfarma — Federazione Nazionale Unitaria dei Titolari di Farmacia Italiani (C-159/12 to C-161/12),

      Re:

   Requests for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Interpretation of Articles 18 and 56 TFEU and of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU — National legislation prohibiting para-pharmacies from selling prescription-only medicinal products the cost of which is borne by the patient.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not allow a pharmacist, who is qualified and registered with the professional body but does not own a pharmacy in the grid, also to offer for retail sale, in the para-pharmacy owned by that pharmacist, prescription-only medicinal products the cost of which is borne not by the national health service but wholly by the purchaser.

      (1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.


title: Case C-162/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 29 March 2013 — Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav d. d.

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 29 March 2013 — Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav d. d.
   (Case C-162/13)
   2013/C 156/37
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Damijan Vnuk

      Defendant: Zavarovalnica Triglav d. d.

      Question referred

   Must the concept of ‘the use of vehicles’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC (1) of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, be interpreted as not extending to the circumstances of the present case, in which the person insured by the defendant struck the applicant’s ladder with a tractor towing a trailer while hay was being stored in a hayloft, on the basis that the incident did not occur in the context of a road traffic accident?

      (1)  OJ 1972 L 103, p. 1.


title: Case C-542/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 24 October 2011 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: Codirex Expeditie BV

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/31

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 24 October 2011 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: Codirex Expeditie BV
      (Case C-542/11)
      (2012/C 25/55)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

         Respondent: Codirex Expeditie BV

         Question referred

      At what point in time are non-Community goods assignated a customs-approved treatment or use within the meaning of Article 50 (1) of the Community Customs Code where goods with the status of goods ‘in temporary storage’ are declared for placing under the external Community customs transit procedure?

         (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 28 November 2003 in Case T-200/03 R: V v Commission of the European Communities (Application for interim relief — Application for stay of execution — Dismissal for inadequate performance — Urgency)

text:
20.3.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 71/29
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
                      of 18 November 2003                                                         of 28 November 2003
                                                                           in Case T-200/03 R: V v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
In Case T-383/02, G.D. Searle LLC against Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                       Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                 (Application for interim relief — Application for stay of
                                                                           execution — Dismissal for inadequate performance —
                                                                                Urgency)
(Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of                                               (2004/C 71/55)
invalidity — Relative ground for invalidity — Amicable
              settlement — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                           (2004/C 71/54)
                                                                           In Case T-200/03 R: V, an official of the defendant, residing in
                                                                           Overijse (Belgium), represented by C. Mourato, lawyer, against
                                                                           the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Cur-
                   (Language of the case: English)                         rall) — application for stay of execution of the Commission’s
                                                                           decision of 10 March 2003 to dismiss the applicant due to
                                                                           inadequate performance — the President of the Court of First
                                                                           Instance made an order on 28 November 2003, the operative
                                                                           part of which is as follows:
                                                                           1.     The application for interim relief is dismissed.
In Case T-383/02, G.D. Searle LLC, established in Skokie,
Illinois (United States of America), represented by W.A. Hoyng,
lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market            2.     Costs are reserved.
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), (Agents: G. Schneider and
T. Eichenberg), the intervener before the Court of First
Instance being Phyto-Esp SL, established in Saragossa (Spain),
represented by S.H. Poelmann-Teijgeler, lawyer: Action
brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) of 1 October 2002 (Case R 627/2001-1)                   ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
relating to proceedings between G.D. Searle LLC and Phyto-                                               INSTANCE
Esp SL for a declaration of invalidity, the Court of First Instance
(First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, P. Men-                                   of 25 November 2003
gozzi and M.E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
made an order on 18 November 2003, the operative part of                   in Case T-339/03 R: Gabrielle Clotuche v Commission of
which is as follows:                                                                           the European Communities
                                                                           (Application for interim relief — Officials — Decision
1.    There is no need to adjudicate.                                      reassigning the applicant to the post of Principal Adviser —
                                                                                Urgency — None)
2.    The applicant shall pay its own costs and those incurred by                                      (2004/C 71/56)
      OHIM.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
3.    The intervener shall pay its own costs.
                                                                           In Case T-339/03 R: Gabrielle Clotuche, official of the
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-
(1) OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.                                                  sels (Belgium), represented by P.-P. Van Gehuchten, G. Demez
                                                                           and J. Sambon, lawyers, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                           munities (Agents: J. Currall and H. Kraemer) — application,
                                                                           first, for stay of execution of the decision of 9 July 2003 to


title: Case T-207/06: Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Europig v OHIM (EUROPIG)

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/20

         Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Europig v OHIM (EUROPIG)
   (Case T-207/06)
   (2006/C 261/38)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Europig (Josselin, France) (represented by: D. Masson, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision of the Board of Appeal of 31 May 2006 (R 1425/2005-4);

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs in their entirety.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘EUROPIG’, for goods in Classes 29 and 30 (Application No 3 816 691)

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c), (2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 40/94. The applicant claims that the mark applied for is not descriptive of the goods designated, is fully distinctive and that, in any event, the distinctive character of the name 'Europig' has been acquired through use.


title: Case C-15/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 13 January 2017 — Bosphorus Queen Shipping Ltd Corp. v Rajavartiolaitos

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 13 January 2017 — Bosphorus Queen Shipping Ltd Corp. v Rajavartiolaitos
   (Case C-15/17)
   (2017/C 086/22)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bosphorus Queen Shipping Ltd Corp.

      Defendant: Rajavartiolaitos

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the expression ‘coastline or related interests’ in Article 220(6) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and the expression ‘coastline or related interests’ in Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35/EC (1) to be interpreted by reference to the definition of the expression ‘coastline or related interests’ contained in Article II(4) of the 1969 International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties?

               2.

               In accordance with the definition contained in Article II(4)(c) of the 1969 Convention referred to in Question 1, ‘related interests’ means, inter alia, the well-being of the area concerned, including conservation of living marine resources and of wildlife. Does that provision also apply to the conservation of living resources and wildlife in the exclusive economic zone, or is that provision of the Convention concerned only with conservation of the interests of the coastal area?

               3.

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative, what meaning is to be ascribed to the expression ‘coastline or related interests’ in Article 220(6) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and the expression ‘coastline or related interests’ in Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35/EC?

               4.

               What meaning is to be ascribed to the expression ‘resources of its territorial sea or exclusive economic zone’ as it is used in Article 220(6) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35/EC? Are living resources to be taken to mean only exploitable species or does that term also include species associated with or dependent upon exploitable species within the meaning of Article 61(4) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, such as, for example, species of flora and fauna which are used by exploitable species as food?

               5.

               What definition is to be adopted of the expression ‘causing … [a] threat’ in Article 220(6) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35/EC? Is the threat of damage being caused to be determined by reference to the concept of abstract or specific risk or in some other way?

               6.

               In the assessment of the conditions governing the exercise of power by the coastal State, laid down in Article 220(6) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35/EC, must it be assumed that major damage or the threat of major damage is a more serious consequence than significant pollution of the marine environment or the threat of such pollution within the meaning of Article 220(5)? What definition is to be adopted of ‘significant pollution of the marine environment’ and how is account to be taken of such pollution in the assessment of major damage or the threat of major damage?

               7.

               What factors are to be taken into account in the assessment of whether damage or the threat of damage is major? Is account to be taken, for example, of the duration and geographical extent of the adverse effects that manifest themselves as damage? If so, how are the duration and the extent of the damage to be assessed?

               8.

               Directive 2005/35/EC is a directive laying down minimum standards and does not prevent Member States from taking more stringent measures against ship-source pollution in conformity with international law (Article 2). Does the possibility of applying more stringent rules apply to Article 7(2) of that directive, which governs the power of the coastal State to take action against a vessel in transit?

               9.

               May any account be taken of the specific geographical and ecological characteristics and sensitivity of the Baltic Sea Area in the assessment of the conditions governing the exercise of power by the coastal State which are laid down in Article 220(6) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7(2) of the Directive?

               10.

               Does ‘clear objective evidence’ within the meaning of Article 220(6) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35/EC include not only evidence that a vessel has committed the infringements to which the aforementioned provisions refer but also evidence of the consequences of the spill? What form of evidence is to be required to show that there is a threat of major damage to the coastline or related interests or to any resources of the territorial sea or of the exclusive economic zone, such as the bird and fish stocks and the marine environment in the area? Does the requirement of clear objective evidence mean, for example, that the assessment of the adverse effects of the oil spillage on the marine environment must always be based on specific surveys and studies relating to the impact of the oil spill that has occurred?

      (1)  Directive 2009/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 amending Directive 2005/35/EC on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements (OJ 2009 L 280, p. 52).


title: Case C-221/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  18 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Protection of species — Hunting using stopped snares in private hunting areas — Castilla y León)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-221/04) (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Protection of species - Hunting using stopped snares in private hunting areas - Castilla y León)
   (2006/C 165/08)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Valero Jordana and M. van Beek, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Art. 12(1) of and Annex VI to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Authorisation by the authorities of Castilla y León of hunting with snares in private hunting areas
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 10.07.2004.


title: Case T-240/12: Action brought on 4 June 2012 — Eni v Commission

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/27

         Action brought on 4 June 2012 — Eni v Commission
   (Case T-240/12)
   2012/C 217/57
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Eni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Roberti and I. Perego, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the action admissible;

               —

               Annul the contested measure;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against the letter (D/2012/042026) of 23 April 2012 concerning Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber — Re-adoption, by which the European Commission communicated to ENI its decision to recommence the BR-ESBR procedure following the judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 in Case T-39/07 Eni v Commission, which annulled in part Decision C(2006) 5700 of 29 November 2006 adopted in Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber and reduced the fine imposed.
   In support of the action, ENI relies on a single plea in law, alleging lack of competence, since the Commission cannot recommence the investigation procedure in Case BR-ESBR with a view to adopting a fresh decision imposing fines.
   ENI submits that in its judgment of 13 July 2011, in addition to annulling in part the 2006 BR-ESBR decision, on the basis that the Commission had failed to make a correct assessment of the aggravating circumstance of repeated infringement, the General Court exercised its unlimited jurisdiction — under Article 261 TFEU and Regulation No 1/2003 — re-determining the amount of the fine and substituting its own assessment for that of the Commission. From that perspective, the decision to recommence the BR-ESBR procedure, as well as infringing the principle governing the attribution of powers and ensuring institutional balance referred to in Article 13 TFEU, is contrary to the fundamental right to fair legal process laid down in Article 6 ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and to the ne bis in idem principle embodied in Article 7 ECHR.
   Moreover, ENI claims that, contrary to what is stated in the contested measure, the General Court did not merely establish a procedural defect in the Commission’s application of the concept of repeated infringement in the 2006 BR-ESBR decision; the Commission cannot, therefore, rely on the PVC II
       (1) case-law to justify its own action, which, also from that perspective, is contrary to Article 7 ECHR.
   Lastly, having regard to the relevant case-law, ENI submits that in the circumstances of the present case any possibility of readopting a decision which once again applies the concept of repeated infringement and imposes a fine is, in any event, wholly precluded.

      (1)  Joined Cases C-238/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, C-250/99 P to C-252/99 P Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV (LVM) and Others v Commission (PVV II) [2002] ECR I-8375.


title: Case C-43/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 27 November 2003 in the case of Finanzamt Arnsberg against Stadt Sundern

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


title: Case C-597/11 P: Order of the Court of 4 October 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission (Appeal — Public contract awarded by the Commission — Rejection of a tender — Obligation to state reasons — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 — Article 89 — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 — Articles 140 and 141 — Period allowed for the receipt of tenders — Period allowed for the submission of requests for information)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/3

         Order of the Court of 4 October 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
   (Case C-597/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Public contract awarded by the Commission - Rejection of a tender - Obligation to state reasons - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 - Article 89 - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 - Articles 140 and 141 - Period allowed for the receipt of tenders - Period allowed for the submission of requests for information)
   2013/C 101/06
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, Δικηγόρος)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2011 in Case T-232/06 Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission dismissing an application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 19 June 2006 rejecting the tender submitted by the present appellant in response to call for tenders TAXUD/2005/AO-001 concerning the specification, development, maintenance and support of customs IT systems for DG TAXUD (OJ 2005, S 117-115222), and the decision to award the contract to another tenderer

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case C-417/05 P: Appeal brought on  24 November 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on  13 September 2005  by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-272/03  M.D. Fernández Gómez  v  Commission of the European Communities

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/17

         Appeal brought on 24 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 13 September 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-272/03 M.D. Fernández Gómez v Commission of the European Communities

   (Case C-417/05 P)
   (2006/C 10/34)
   Language of the case: French
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 September 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-272/03 M.D. Fernández Gómez v Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Martin and L. Lozano Palacios, acting as Agents.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               pass final judgment on the dispute, allowing the claims submitted by the defendant at first instance and, consequently, dismissing the application in Case T-272/03;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

               —

               order Ms Fernández Gómez to pay the costs of the proceedings, including her own costs in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In its appeal, the Commission relies on three pleas:

               1.

               The first plea alleges that the Court of First Instance erred in law in holding the action to be admissible on the ground that the letter of 19 January 2001 did not amount to a decision, and that the measure contested at first instance, that is the electronic mail of 12 May 2003, was not merely confirmatory but contained a new element in relation to the contract of 17 January 2001 and the letter of 19 January 2001. The Commission considers that the action is inadmissible inasmuch as the letter of 19 January 2001 and the contract of 17 January 2001 define the administration's final position with regard to the applicant. These are therefore the measures which the applicant should have challenged. The Commission submits that the electronic mail of 12 May 2003 neither constitutes a decision nor contains the slightest new element in relation to the previous measures. The Court should thus dismiss the action as inadmissible.

               2.

               The second plea alleges an error of law in the interpretation of the decision of 13 November 1996, in particular the concept of 'staff not governed by the Staff Regulations'. According to the Commission, it is apparent from its objective and its very wording, as well as from the context in which it was taken, that the decision covered all the 'administrative positions or contracts with the Commission' of all the staff at the Commission that are not officials. In the alternative, the Commission maintains that the Court of First Instance ruled ultra petita and misinterpreted Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities. Where, as in the present case, a provision in the Staff Regulations provides the appointing authority with a mere option, the exercise of that option falls within its wide discretionary power.

               3.

               The third plea alleges a breach of Community law by awarding compensation for alleged material loss that is neither actual nor quantifiable. It alleges, in the alternative, a failure to comply with the duty to provide reasons when calculating the damage, thereby preventing the Court from reviewing whether the principle of proportionality has been observed.


title: Order of the Court of 7 October 2013 in Joined Cases E-4/12 and E-5/12 — Risdal Touring AS and Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               19.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/18

         ORDER OF THE COURT
   of 7 October 2013
   in Joined Cases E-4/12 and E-5/12
   Risdal Touring AS and Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility — No need to adjudicate)
   (2013/C 372/07)
   In Joined Cases E-4/12 and E-5/12, Risdal Touring AS and Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION seeking in Case E-4/12 Risdal Touring the annulment of the defendant’s decision, first notified on 5 April 2012 without stating reasons, and subsequently notified on 4 May 2012, denying public access to the full statement of content and specific documents in ESA Case No 70506, a State aid case, on the basis of the Rules on Access to Documents (‘RAD’) established by ESA Decision No 407/08/COL on 27 June 2008; and in Case E-5/12 Konkurrenten the annulment of the defendant’s decision as notified on 5 April 2012 without stating reasons and denying public access to the full statement of content in ESA Case No 60510, a State aid case, on the basis of the RAD established by ESA Decision No 407/08/COL on 27 June 2008, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave order on 7 October 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby orders:

                  In Case E-4/12 Risdal Touring AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority:

                           1.

                           The part of the application directed at specific documents is dismissed as inadmissible;

                           2.

                           There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the remainder of the application;

                           3.

                           ESA is to bear its own costs and half of the costs incurred by the applicant;

                           4.

                           The applicant is to bear half of its costs.

                  In Case E-5/12 Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority:

                           1.

                           The application is dismissed as inadmissible;

                           2.

                           ESA is to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by the applicant.


title: Case T-208/00: Action brought on 9 August 2000 by Jeremías Augusto Barleycorn Mongolue and Marc Boixader Rivas against the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament

text:
C 316/26                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.11.2000
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                             Mongolue and Marc Boixader Rivas residing in Madrid,
                              INSTANCE                                   represented by their legal adviser Diego López Garrido.
                           of 20 July 2000                               The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:
in Case T-137/00 R Cambridge Healthcare Supplies Ltd v                   —     Annul the notices of competition for open competitions
         Commission of the European Communities                                EUR/A/159/2000 and PE/90/A; and
(Proceedings for interim relief — Withdrawal of the market-              —     Annul the guide for candidates taking part in interinsti-
ing authorisation for medicinal products for human use                         tutional competitions
containing ‘phentermine’ — Directive 75/319/EEC — Sus-
pension of the operation of the withdrawal decision until a
final order in the proceedings for interim relief has been               Pleas in law and main arguments
                                made)
                                                                         The present action is directed against the notices of compe-
                          (2000/C 316/50)                                tition in respect of open competitions EUR/A/159/2000
                                                                         and PE/90/A (1), in so far as they make admission to the
                   (Language of the case: English)                       competitions subject to the requirement that the applicant is
                                                                         the holder of a Spanish honours degree (‘licenciado’) and has
                                                                         not merely completed a three year university course, such as
In Case T-137/00 R Cambridge Healthcare Supplies Ltd, whose              technical engineering. In conjunction with that claim for
registered office is in Norfolk, United Kingdom, represented             annulment, the action challenges paragraph E 1.(a) of the guide
by D. Vaughan, K. Bacon, Barristers and S. Davis, Solicitor,             for candidates taking part in interinstitutional competitions (2).
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
A. Moro, Kremer Associés and Clifford Chance, 6 Rue Heinrich
Heine v Commission of the European Communities, (Agents:                 In support of their claims, the applicants, who are both
R. Wainwright and H. Støvlbæk), application under                        technical engineers, make the following pleas:
Article 105(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
Instance for suspension of the operation of the Commission’s             —     The contested documents are vitiated by arbitrariness and
decision of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of                          misuse of powers.
marketing athorisation of medicinal products for human use
which contain the following substance: ‘Phentermine’ (C(2000)            —     Breach of the principles of equal treatment, pro-
452), the President of the Court has made an order on 20 July                  portionality, legal certainty and legitimate expectations.
2000 the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                         —     Breach of the principle of legality and of the right of
1.    The operation of the Commission Decision of 9 March 2000                 access to employment in the Community civil service.
      concerning the withdrawal of marketing authorisations of
      medicinal products for human use which contain the following       In particular it is claimed that:
      substance: ‘Phentermine’ (C(2000) 452) is suspended until the
      making of the order terminating the proceedings for interim
                                                                         —     the Spanish Supreme Court, in a judgment of 24 January
      relief.
                                                                               2000, held that technical engineers are ‘titulados superior-
2.    The costs are reserved.                                                  es’ (holders of higher educational qualifications);
                                                                         —     while Spanish technical engineers do not have access to
                                                                               Category A posts in the European civil service, such posts
                                                                               are open to other professionals who have completed
                                                                               degree courses of a similar length, such as German,
                                                                               English or Irish engineers; and
Action brought on 9 August 2000 by Jeremı́as Augusto
Barleycorn Mongolue and Marc Boixader Rivas against                      —     the defendant institutions infringed Article 5 of the
the Council of the European Union and the European                             Staff Regulations in so far as the expression ‘university
                              Parliament                                       education’, which is found in that provision, is translated
                                                                               in the contested documents by expressions such as
                                                                               ‘higher’ (‘superior’) university education, ‘honours degree’
                          (Case T-208/00)
                                                                               (‘licenciatura’) and ‘university degree awarded on com-
                                                                               pletion of a course of studies of a particular length’ (‘ciclo
                          (2000/C 316/51)                                      largo’).
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                       (1) OJ C 162 A, 10.6.2000, p. 10 (Spanish-language edition).
                                                                         (2) Ibid. p. 1.
An action against the Council of the European Union and the
European Parliament was brought before the Court of First
Instance on 9 August 2000 by Jeremı́as Augusto Barleycorn


title: Case C-210/15 P: Appeal brought on 6 May 2015 by the Republic of Poland against the judgment of the General Court of 25 February 2015 in Case T-257/13 Republic of Poland v European Commission

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/28

         Appeal brought on 6 May 2015 by the Republic of Poland against the judgment of the General Court of 25 February 2015 in Case T-257/13 Republic of Poland v European Commission
   (Case C-210/15 P)
   (2015/C 236/38)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 February 2015 in Case T-257/13 Republic of Poland v European Commission;

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision 2013/123/EU of 26 February 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2013) 981) (1), in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the sums of EUR 2 8 7 63  238,60 and EUR 5 6 88  440,96 paid by the paying agency accredited by the Republic of Poland;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Republic of Poland raises against the judgment under appeal a plea of misinterpretation of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 1257/1999 and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1698/2005 consisting in the acceptance that a condition of support for early retirement is that the transferor of the farm must have carried on commercial farming before the transfer of that farm, whereas those provisions give rise to a requirement that (commercial or non-commercial) farming has been carried on for 10 years before the transfer of the farm and a prohibition of commercial farming by the transferor of the farm after the transfer of that farm.
   According to the Republic of Poland, a requirement that commercial farming has been carried on in the period preceding the transfer of the farm does not follow from EU law. Article 11(1) of Regulation No 1257/1999 and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1698/2005 lay down a requirement that farming activity has been carried on for 10 years preceding the transfer of the farm, but the activity during that period may be commercial or non-commercial. In addition, those provisions prohibit commercial farming by the transferor of the farm after the transfer of the farm.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 67, p. 20.


title: Case T-223/07 P: Appeal brought on 27 June 2007 by Michel Thierry against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 April 2007 in Case F-82/05, Thierry v Commission

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/42

         Appeal brought on 27 June 2007 by Michel Thierry against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 April 2007 in Case F-82/05, Thierry v Commission
   (Case T-223/07 P)
   (2007/C 199/79)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Michel Thierry (Howald, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 April 2007 in Case F-82/05, notified to the applicant on 17 April 2007;

               —

               grant the forms of order sought by the appellant at first instance and, consequently, declare the application in Case F-82/05 to be admissible and well-founded;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               make an order as to costs, expenses and fees and order the Commission to pay them.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In his appeal, the appellant seeks to have set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal, which rejected in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly unfounded the action for annulment of the list of officials promoted under the 2004 promotion procedure, in so far as that list does not include his name.
   In support of his appeal, the appellant puts forward a single plea alleging an error of interpretation and of assessment of the facts, which led to a procedural error and an error of law by the Civil Service Tribunal in so far as it did not grant the application, as set out in the reply at first instance, for a member of the service in which the appellant was employed to be heard.


title: Case C-134/01: Action brought on 22 March 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 161/10                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2.6.2001
Action brought on 22 March 2001 by the Commission of                     Action brought on 22 March 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                    the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                              of Germany                                                              of Germany
                           (Case C-134/01)                                                          (Case C-135/01)
                           (2001/C 161/18)                                                          (2001/C 161/19)
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                    An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 22 March 2001 by the Commission of the European                  ties on 22 March 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Gerald Braun, of its Legal Service,          Communities, represented by Gerald Braun, of its Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of               with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Gérard Berscheid, Legal Adviser in the Legal Service of the              Gérard Berscheid, Legal Adviser in the Legal Service of the
European Commission, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                     European Commission, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) declare that, by failing within the prescribed time-limit to         (1) declare that, by failing within the prescribed time-limit to
      adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative                       adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative
      measures necessary in order to transpose into national                   measures necessary in order to transpose into national
      law the provisions of Council Directive 98/57/EC of                      law the provisions of Council Directive 98/56/EC of
      20 July 1998 (1) on the control of Ralstonia solanacearum                20 July 1998 (1) on the marketing of propagating material
      (Smith) Yabuuchi et al., the Federal Republic of Germany                 of ornamental plants, the Federal Republic of Germany
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and             has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and
      under the said directive;                                                under the said directive;
(2) order the defendant to pay the costs.                                (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those               The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
in Case C-132/01 (2); the time-limit for transposition prescribed        in Case C-134/01 (2); the time-limit for transposition prescribed
by Article 12(1) of the directive expired on 21 August 1999.             by Article 19(1) of the directive expired on 1 July 1999.
(1) OJ L 235, 1998, p. 1.                                                (1) OJ L 226, 1998, p. 16.
(2) See p. 9 of the Official Journal.                                    (2) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 1996 in Case C-312/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure to fulfil obligations - Council Directives 90/219/EEC and 90/220/EEC - Genetically modified organisms)

text:
No C 388/2           LEN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         21 . 12 . 96
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before                 1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
that Court between Konservenfabrik Lubella Friedrich                         period the measures necessary in order to comply with
Bilker GmbH & Co. KG and Hauptzollamt Cottbus on                             Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on
the validity of Commission Regulation (EEC ) No 1932/93                      the contained use of genetically modified micro
of 16 July 1993 establishing protective measures as                          organisms, and Council Directive 90/220/EEC of
regards the import of sour cherries ( OJ No L 174, 17. 7.                    23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the
1993 , p. 35 ) — the Court (Third Chamber ), composed of:                    environment of genetically modified organisms, the
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C.                      Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur)                    obligations under Articles 22 and 23 of those
and P. Jann, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; R.                       Directives respectively;
Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 October 1996,
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                       2 . orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
                                                                             costs .
 Consideration of the questions referred to the Court has
disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity           ( i ) OJ No C 315 , 2.5 . 11 . 1995 .
of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1932/93 establishing
protective measures as regards the import of sour cherries.
 (!) OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 24 October 1996
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  in     Case    C-325/95 :        Commission       of the   European
                                                                                Communities v. Ireland C1 )
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                        (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations —
                        of 17 October 1996                             Directives 91/67/EEC, 91/492/EEC, 91/493/EEC and 92/
 in     Case C-3 12/95 : Commission of the European                     48/EEC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed
        Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg 0 )                                                     period)
                                                                                ( 96/C 388/04 )
 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Council Directives 90/219/
  EEC and 90/220/EEC — Genetically modified organisms)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                            ( 96/C 388/03 )
                                                                        In Case C-325/95 : Commission of the European
                  (Language of the case: French)                        Communities ( Agent: Carmel O'Reilly) v. Ireland ( Agent:
                                                                        Michael A. Buckley ) — application for a declaration that,
                                                                        by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations or
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        administrative provisions necessary to comply with:
            published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                        — Council Directive 91/67/EEC of 28 January 1991
                                                                              concerning the animal health conditions governing the
 In Case C-312/95 : Commission of the European                                placing on the market of aquaculture animals and
  Communities ( Agent: Frank Benyon) v. Grand Duchy of                        products ( OJ No L 46 , 19 . 2 . 1991 , p. 1 ),
  Luxembourg (Agent: Nicolas Schmidt) — application for a
  declaration that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
  period the measures necessary in order to comply with                 — Council Directive 91 /492/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying
  Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the                        down the health conditions for the production and the
  contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms ( OJ                  placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs ( OJ No
  No L 117, 8 . 5 . 1990, p. 1 ), and Council Directive 90/                   L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p. 1 ),
  220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into
  the environment of genetically modified organisms ( OJ No             — Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying
  L 117, 8 . 5 . 1990, p. 15 ), the Grand Duchy of                            down the health conditions for the production and the
  Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under                       placing on the market of fishery products ( OJ No
  Articles 22 and 23 of those Directives respectively and                     L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p. 15 ), and
  under Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty, the Court
  ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de
  Almeida, President of the Chamber, L. Sevon                           — Council Directive 92/48/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying
  ( Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward and M.                           down the minimum hygiene rules applicable to fishery
  Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R.                       products caught on board certain vessels in accordance
  Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 October                        with Article 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( i ) of Directive 91/493/EEC ( OJ
  1 996 in which it:                                                          No L 187, 7 . 7. 1992, p. 41 ),


title: Case C-382/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2014  — MasterCard Inc., MasterCard International Inc., MasterCard Europe SPRL v European Commission, Banco Santander SA, Royal Bank of Scotland plc, HSBC Bank plc, Bank of Scotland plc, Lloyds TSB Bank plc, MBNA Europe Bank Ltd, British Retail Consortium, EuroCommerce AISBL, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Appeal — Cross-appeals — Admissibility — Article 81 EC — Open system of payment by debit, charge and credit cards — Multilateral fallback interchange fees — Association of undertakings — Restrictions of competition by effect — Standard of judicial review — Concept of ‘ancillary restriction’  — Objectively necessary and proportionate nature — Appropriate ‘counterfactual hypotheses’  — Two-sided systems — Treatment of annexes to the application at first instance)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2014 — MasterCard Inc., MasterCard International Inc., MasterCard Europe SPRL v European Commission, Banco Santander SA, Royal Bank of Scotland plc, HSBC Bank plc, Bank of Scotland plc, Lloyds TSB Bank plc, MBNA Europe Bank Ltd, British Retail Consortium, EuroCommerce AISBL, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-382/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Cross-appeals - Admissibility - Article 81 EC - Open system of payment by debit, charge and credit cards - Multilateral fallback interchange fees - Association of undertakings - Restrictions of competition by effect - Standard of judicial review - Concept of ‘ancillary restriction’ - Objectively necessary and proportionate nature - Appropriate ‘counterfactual hypotheses’ - Two-sided systems - Treatment of annexes to the application at first instance))
   2014/C 409/04
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: MasterCard Inc., MasterCard International Inc., MasterCard Europe SPRL (represented by: E. Barbier de la Serre, V. Brophy and B. Amory, avocats, and T. Sharpe QC)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and N. Khan, acting as Agents), Banco Santander SA, Royal Bank of Scotland plc (represented by: D. Liddell, Solicitor, and M. Hoskins, Barrister), HSBC Bank plc (represented by: R. Thompson QC), Bank of Scotland plc, Lloyds TSB Bank plc (represented by: K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos and S. Wisking, Solicitors, and J. Flynn QC), MBNA Europe Bank Ltd (represented by: A. Davis, Solicitor), British Retail Consortium (represented by: R. Marchini, advocate, and A. Robertson, Barrister), EuroCommerce AISBL (represented by: J. Stuyck, advocaat), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Holt and C. Murrell, acting as Agents, J. Turner QC and J. Holmes, Barrister)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeals;

               2)

               Orders MasterCard Inc., MasterCard International Inc. and MasterCard Europe SPRL to bear their own costs relating to the main appeal and the cross-appeals, and to pay the European Commission’s costs relating to the main appeal;

               3)

               Orders Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Bank of Scotland plc and Lloyds TSB Bank plc to bear their own costs and to pay the European Commission’s costs relating to their respective cross-appeals;

               4)

               Orders HSBC Bank plc, MBNA Europe Bank Ltd, British Retail Consortium, EuroCommerce AISBL and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.2012.


title: Case C-603/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče (Slovenia) lodged on 21 December 2010 — Pelati d.o.o. v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče (Slovenia) lodged on 21 December 2010 — Pelati d.o.o. v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-603/10)
   2011/C 80/22
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Upravno sodišče

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pelati d.o.o.

      Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

      Question referred

   Must Article 11 of Council Directive 90/434/EEC (1) be interpreted as precluding a provision of domestic law in accordance with which the Republic of Slovenia, as a Member State, makes tax relief for a commercial company wishing to effect a division (splitting off of part of the company and formation of a new company) subject to the presentation within time-limits of a request for the issuing of authorisation of the grant of tax advantages, consequent upon the division if the conditions laid down have been satisfied, or in accordance with which the person liable to pay the tax automatically loses, because the time-limit has been passed, the tax advantages provided for under domestic law?

      (1)  Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, OJ 1990 L 225, p. 1.


title: Joined Cases C-12/13 P and C-13/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 October 2014  — Gérard Buono and Others (C-12/13 P) and Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens and Others (C-13/13 P) v European Commission (Appeals — Common fisheries policy — Fishing quotas — Emergency measures adopted by the Commission — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU — Conditions — Actual and certain harm)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 October 2014 — Gérard Buono and Others (C-12/13 P) and Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens and Others (C-13/13 P) v European Commission
   (Joined Cases C-12/13 P and C-13/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Common fisheries policy - Fishing quotas - Emergency measures adopted by the Commission - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU - Conditions - Actual and certain harm))
   (2014/C 462/06)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Gérard Buono, Jean-Luc Buono, Roger Louis Paul Del Ponte, Serge Antoine Di Rocco, Jean Gérald Lubrano, Jean Lubrano, Jean Lucien Lubrano, Fabrice Marin, Robert Marin (represented by: A. Arnaud and P.-O. Koubi-Flotte, avocats) (C-12/13 P), Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens, Marc Carreno, Jean Louis Donnarel, Jean-François Flores, Gérald Jean Lubrano, Hervé Marin, Nicolas Marin, Sébastien Marin, Jean-Marc Penniello, Serge Antoine José Perez (represented by: C. Bonnefoi, avocate) (C-13/13 P)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals brought in Cases C-12/13 P and C-13/13 P;

               2.

               Orders Gérard Buono, Jean-Luc Buono, Roger Del Ponte, Serge Antoine Di Rocco, Jean Gérald Lubrano, Jean Lubrano, Jean Lucien Lubrano, Fabrice Marin and Robert Marin to pay the costs in Case C-12/13 P and the Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens, Marc Carreno, Jean-Louis Donnarel, Jean-François Flores, Gérald Jean Lubrano, Hervé Marin, Nicolas Marin, Sébastien Marin and Serge Antoine José Perez to pay the costs in Case C-13/13 P.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 September 2002 in Case T-178/01: Di Leonardo Adriano SRL v Commission of the European Communities (Bananas — Regulation No 896/2001 — Action for annulment — Person individually concerned — Admissibility)

text:
11.1.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 7/19
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 European Communities (Agents: L. Visaggio and A. Dal Ferro)
                                                                            — application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
                      of 25 September 2002                                  No 896/2001 of 7 may 2001 laying down detailed rules for
                                                                            applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the
                                                                            arrangements for importing bananas into the Community (OJ
in Case T-178/01: Di Leonardo Adriano SRL v Com-
                                                                            2001 L 126, p. 19) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
           mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, and R. García-
                                                                            Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
(Bananas — Regulation No 896/2001 — Action for annul-                       order on 25 September 2002, in which it:
    ment — Person individually concerned — Admissibility)
                           (2003/C 7/38)                                    1.    Held the action to be inadmissible.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                         2.    Ordered the applicant to bear the whole of the costs.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 289 of 13.10.01.
In Case T-178/01: Di Leonardo Adriano SRL, represented by
A. Bozzi, C. Gatti and B. Telchini, lawyers, against Commission
of the European Communities (Agents: L. Visaggio and A. Dal
Ferro) — application for annulment of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 896/2001 of 7 may 2001 laying down detailed rules
for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards
the arrangements for importing bananas into the Community
(OJ 2001 L 126, p. 19) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, and R. García-                 Action brought on 11 October 2002 by H.O. Sports
Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an                Company, Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in
order on 25 September 2002, in which it:                                           the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
1.    Held the action to be inadmissible;
                                                                                (Case T-318/02)
2.    Ordered the applicant to bear the whole of the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 7/40)
( 1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.01.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                            Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                      of 25 September 2002                                  11 October 2002 by H.O. Sports Company, Inc., Redmond,
                                                                            Washington, U.S.A., represented by Mr Fabrizio Jacobacci,
in Case T-179/01: Dilexport SRL v Commission of the                         lawyer.
                   European Communities ( 1)
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
(Bananas — Regulation No 896/2001 — Action for annul-
    ment — Person individually concerned — Admissibility)
                                                                            —     amend the decision of 17 July 2002 (File No. R 140/
                                                                                2002-3) of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
                           (2003/C 7/39)
                                                                                Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                                and Designs) and allow the Community Trade Mark
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                               Application to proceed to registration in connection with
                                                                                the following goods:
In Case T-179/01: Dilexport SRL, represented by A. Bozzi,                         —     ‘backpacks; travel bags; duffel bags for practice of
C. Gatti and B. Telchini, lawyers, against Commission of the                            wakeboard’ in international class 18;


title: Case C-535/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Novartis Pharma GmbH v Apozyt GmbH (Request for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 — Medicinal products for human use — Procedure for authorisation — Requirement for authorisation — Concept of medicinal products ‘developed’ by means of certain biotechnological processes, as referred to in point 1 of the Annex to that regulation — Repackaging process — Injectable solution distributed in single-use vials containing a larger quantity of the therapeutic solution than that actually used for the purposes of medical treatment — Part of the content of such vials drawn off, on prescription by a doctor, into syringes pre-filled with the prescribed dose, without any modification of the medicinal product)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Novartis Pharma GmbH v Apozyt GmbH
   (Case C-535/11) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Medicinal products for human use - Procedure for authorisation - Requirement for authorisation - Concept of medicinal products ‘developed’ by means of certain biotechnological processes, as referred to in point 1 of the Annex to that regulation - Repackaging process - Injectable solution distributed in single-use vials containing a larger quantity of the therapeutic solution than that actually used for the purposes of medical treatment - Part of the content of such vials drawn off, on prescription by a doctor, into syringes pre-filled with the prescribed dose, without any modification of the medicinal product)
   2013/C 156/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Novartis Pharma GmbH

      Defendant: Apozyt GmbH

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1) — Meaning of ‘hergestellt’ (‘developed’ in the English version) in point 1 of that Annex — Whether that term covers the drawing off of liquid medicinal products from the original containers and the transfer into ready-to-use syringes

      Operative part of the judgment

   Activities such as those at issue in the main proceedings, provided that they do not result in a modification of the medicinal product concerned and are carried out solely on the basis of individual prescriptions calling for processes of such a kind — a matter which falls to be determined by the referring court —, do not require a marketing authorisation under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency, but remain, in any event, subject to Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2010/84/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 30 April 1998 in Case T-205/95: Giampaolo Cordiale v. European Parliament (Officials - Exchanges of officials between the Parliament and national administrations - Subsistence allowance - Travel expenses - Complaint - Express rejection - Inadmissibility of the action)

text:
13.6.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 184/9
         Removal from the register of C-365/96 (1)                          Removal from the register of C-203/97 (1)
                        (98/C 184/14)                                                      (98/C 184/15)
By order of 26 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                By order of 26 March 1998 the President of the Court of
removal from the register of Case C-365/96 (reference for          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin):               removal from the register of Case C-203/97: Commission
Ruhrgas AG and Thyssengas GmbH v. Bundeskartellamt.                of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of
                                                                   Germany.
(1) OJ C 9, 11.1.1997.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 28 April 1998                                                   of 30 April 1998
in Case T-184/95: Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft             in Case T-205/95: Giampaolo Cordiale v. European
mbH against Council of the European Union and                                               Parliament (1)
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Exchanges of officials between the Parliament
(Non-contractual liability for an unlawful act Ð                   and national administrations Ð Subsistence allowance Ð
Regulation (EEC) No 2340/90 Ð Embargo on trade with                Travel expenses Ð Complaint Ð Express rejection Ð
Iraq Ð Impairment of rights equivalent to expropriation                             Inadmissibility of the action)
        Ð Liability for an unlawful act Ð Damage)
                                                                                (98/C 184/17)
                        (98/C 184/16)
               (Language of the case: German)                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-184/95, Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft             In Case T-205/95: Giampaolo Cordiale, a former member
mbH, established in Munich (Germany), represented by               of the temporary staff of the European Parliament,
Professor Karl M. Meessen, with an address for service in          residing at Messina (Italy), represented by Jean-NoeÈl
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Patrick Kinsch, 100                  Louis, of the Brussels Bar, and Alberto Panuccio, of the
Boulevard de la PeÂtrusse, against Council of the European         Reggio di Calabria Bar, with an adress for service in
Union (Agents: initially, Yves Cretien, then Stephan               Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
Marquardt and Antonio Tanca) and Commission of the                 Rue de Cessange, v. European Parliament (Agents:
European Communities (Agents: Peter Gilsdorf, Allan                Manfred Peter and Antonio Caiola) Ð application, first,
Rosas and Jörn Sack) Ð application for compensation for            for annulment of the decision of the Parliament refusing to
the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result         grant the applicant the subsistence allowance and travel
of the adoption of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2340/90             expenses provided for by the Parliament's decision of
of 8 August 1990 preventing trade by the Community as              26 October 1988 and, second, for damages Ð the Court
regards Iraq and Kuwait (OJ L 213 of 9.8.1990, p. 1) Ð             of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P.
the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended              Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke,
Composition), composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos, President,           Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
V. Tiili and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,            given a judgment on 30 April 1998, in which it:
gave a judgment on 28 April 1998 in which it:
                                                                   1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                   2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995.                                          (1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.