7.12.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 305/31
Girardot, residing at L’Haye les Roses (France), represented            temporary staff should not possess skills and abilities at least
by Eric Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for service in                equal to, if not superior to, those of candidates who are in the
Luxembourg.                                                             service of the institution only by virtue of their status as
                                                                        members of the temporary staff. Thus, the Commission was
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             not in a position to show that the exclusion of a candidate
                                                                        who has been a national expert on secondment prior to
—     annul the decisions of the selection board of 5 and 30 July       becoming a member of the temporary staff can be justified in
      2001 to exclude from consideration the application of             the interests of the service.
      the applicant in internal competition COM/R/502211/
      2001, as advertised in the combined notice of vacancies           In support of her action, the applicant also pleads:
      and of internal competitions of 28 May 2001;
                                                                        —     infringement of the first paragraph of Article 27 of the
—     annul the decision expressly rejecting the applicant’s                  Staff Regulations;
      complaint, the said complaint having been lodged on
      29 January 2002 and rejected by an express decision               —     infringement of the general principle of equality of
      receipt of which was acknowledged by the applicant on                   treatment;
      15 July 2002;
                                                                        —     infringement of the general principle that all administrat-
—     order the defendant to pay the costs in any event.                      ive decisions must be based on legally valid reasons;
                                                                        —     infringement of the first paragraph of Article 4 and the
                                                                              first paragraph of Article 29 of the Staff Regulations.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant entered the service of the Commission on
1 February 1996. She initially worked there as a national
expert on secondment and subsequently as a member of the
temporary staff. She applied to take part in internal compe-                    Removal from the register of Case T-116/02 (1)
tition COM/R/502211/2001 for the recruitment of officials.
According to information received by her, the selection board                                    (2002/C 305/64)
for that competition found that, as at 1 January 2001, she had
not completed five years’ service as a member of the temporary                             (Language of the case: French)
staff, so that her name could not be included in the list of
candidates admitted to the tests.
                                                                        By order of 10 September 2002 the President of the Fifth
The applicant contests that rejection. She argues that account          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
should also have been taken of the period during which she              Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                        T-116/02: Antonio Aresu v Commission of the European
was in the Commission’s service as a national expert on
secondment. There is nothing to suggest, prima facie, that a            Communities.
candidate in an internal competition who has been a national
expert on secondment prior to being a member of the                     (1 ) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-31/05: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC and 2002/21/EC — Networks and services — Electronic communications — Common regulatory framework — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 14 July 2005
   in Case C-31/05: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC and 2002/21/EC - Networks and services - Electronic communications - Common regulatory framework - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 271/20)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-31/05 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Shotter) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and S. Ramet) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 28 January 2005 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, P. Kűris (Rapporteur) and G. Arestis, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions required by Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) and Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82 of 2.4.2005.


title: Removal from the register of T-145/96

text:
1 . 11 . 97         1 EN [                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 331 /25
In support of her claims, she pleads, first, breach of the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in
that, according to a practice previously established by the
                                                                     By note of 21 January 1997 the applicant, a grade CI
defendant, the names of those officials most worthy of
                                                                     official, requested that her daughter, born on 14 October
promotion who are not promoted are entered once again                1968 , and her son, born on 6 June 1972, be treated as
in the list of officials most worthy of promotion in the
                                                                     dependent children. That request was granted in relation
following year. This gives rise to a legitimate expectation          to her son .
on the part of officials whose names appear in the list
that, if they are not promoted during the current year,
their names will, at the very least, be entered once again           The applicant pleads infringement of the obligation to
in the list for the following year. In that regard, the              provide a statement of reasons, inasmuch as the contested
applicant also pleads a breach of the obligation to provide          decision is based on an opinion of the Legal Service which
a statement of reasons .                                             was not communicated to the applicant, despite a formal
                                                                     request made by her lawyer.
The applicant further pleads irregularity in the promotion
procedure by reason of maladministration, inasmuch as,
faced with a report going back a long time, the defendant            The second plea alleges infringement of Article 2 (4 ) of
                                                                     Annex VII and a manifest error of assessment.
should, at the very least, have based its decision on the
most recent definitive staff report available. By virtue of
its failure to do so, the Commission was unable to carry
out a proper comparison of the merits of the officials
worthy of promotion.
                                                                               Removal from the register of T-209/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /51 )
Action brought on 8 September 1997 by Giovanna                                      (Language of the case: French)
     Lonuzzo-Murgante against the European Parliament
                        ( Case T-247/97)
                                                                     By order of 10 September 1997, the President of the Third
                          ( 97/C 331/50 )                            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                (Language of the case: French)                       Communities ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                     Case T-209/96 :      Adam      Buick v.    Commission of the
An action against the European Parliament was brought                European Communities.
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 8 September 1997 by Maria Lonuzzo                    H OJ C 54, 22 . 2 . 1997.
Murgante, residing in Strassen ( Luxembourg ), represented
by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane
Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Removal from the register of T-145/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /52 )
— annul the decision rejecting the request that Miss
     Maria Lonuzzo be treated as a dependent child,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— order the Parliament to pay to the applicant all social
     welfare allowances connected with the status of her
                                                                     By order of 15 September 1997, the President of the Third
     daughter Giovanna as a dependent child, together with
     default interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of
     date(s ) when they became payable until the date when
                                                                      Case T-145/96 : Monika Kawicki v. European Parliament.
     they are paid,
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                              H OJ C 336, 9 . 11 . 1996 .


title: Case T-175/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 June 2008 — Coca-Cola v OHIM — San Polo (MEZZOPANE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative trade mark MEZZOPANE — Earlier national word marks MEZZO and MEZZOMIX — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — No likelihood of confusion)

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 June 2008 — Coca-Cola v OHIM — San Polo (MEZZOPANE)
   (Case T-175/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative trade mark MEZZOPANE - Earlier national word marks MEZZO and MEZZOMIX - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - No likelihood of confusion)
   (2008/C 197/35)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and L. Rampini, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: San Polo Srl (Montalcino, Italy) (represented by: G. Casucci and F. Luciani, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 April 2006 (Case R 99/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between The Coca-Cola Company and San Polo Srl.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders The Coca-Cola Company to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212 of 2.9.2006.


title: Case T-363/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2008 — Honda Motor Europe v OHIM — Seat (MAGIC SEAT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MAGIC SEAT — Earlier national figurative trade mark SEAT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2008 — Honda Motor Europe v OHIM — Seat (MAGIC SEAT)
   (Case T-363/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MAGIC SEAT - Earlier national figurative trade mark SEAT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 272/45)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Honda Motor Europe Ltd (Slough, Berkshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and N. Cordell, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Laitinen and A. Folliard Monguiral, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Seat SA (Barcelona, Spain)
   Re:
   ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2006 (Case R 960/2005-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Seat SA and Honda Motor Europe Ltd.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Honda Motor Europe Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


C 352/30              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4.12.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-42/98 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-323/98 (1)
                         (1999/C 352/50)                                                     (1999/C 352/52)
By order of 7 July 1999 the President of the Court of Justice of
the European Communities has ordered the removal from the             By order of 14 September 1999 the President of the Court of
register of Case-42/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Johann Seemeier and Jörg            from the register of Case C-323/98 (reference for a preliminary
Schreiber v Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Salz-            ruling from Tribunale civile e penale, Verona): Idropi SpA v
burg and Jörg Schreiber v Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für           MTMD — Lydis Megatherm Magneta SA.
Kärnten.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-438/97 (1)
                         (1999/C 352/51)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-131/99 (1)
By order of 8 July 1999 the President of the Court of Justice of                             (1999/C 352/53)
the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-438/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Holger Warnecke e.a. v                  By order of 19 July 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat de la province de Salzburg.             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                      the register of Case C-131/99: Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities v Portuguese Republic.
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  19 January 2006  in Case C-330/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo:Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos v Administración del Estado (Freedom of movement for workers — Recognition of diplomas — Directive 89/48/EEC — Profession of engineer — Partial, restricted recognition of professional qualifications — Articles 39 EC and 43 EC)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 19 January 2006
   in Case C-330/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo:Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos v Administración del Estado (1)

   (Freedom of movement for workers - Recognition of diplomas - Directive 89/48/EEC - Profession of engineer - Partial, restricted recognition of professional qualifications - Articles 39 EC and 43 EC)
   (2006/C 60/04)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-330/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain), made by decision of 21 July 2003, received at the Court on 29 July 2003, in the proceedings Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos v Administración del Estado, concerning Giuliano Mauro Imo, the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, N. Colneric, E. Juhász and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 19 January 2006, in which it ruled as follows:

               1.

               When the holder of a diploma awarded in one Member State applies for permission to take up a regulated profession in another Member State, the competent authorities of that Member State are not precluded by Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration from partly allowing that application, if the holder of the diploma so requests, by limiting the scope of the permission to those activities which that diploma allows to be taken up in the Member State in which it was obtained.

               2.

               Articles 39 EC and 43 EC do not preclude a Member State from not allowing partial taking-up of a profession, where shortcomings in the education or training of the party concerned in relation to that required in the host Member State may be effectively made up for through the application of the compensatory measures provided for in Article 4(1) of Directive 89/48. However, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC do preclude a Member State from not allowing that partial taking-up when the party concerned so requests and the differences between the fields of activity are so great that in reality a full programme of education and training is required, unless the refusal for that partial taking-up is justified by overriding reasons based on the general interest, suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue and not going beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective.

      (1)  OJ C 226 of 20.9.2003.


title: Case F-5/10: Action brought on 19 January 2010 — Nicole Clarke v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/54

         Action brought on 19 January 2010 — Nicole Clarke v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case F-5/10)
   2010/C 63/96
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Nicole Clarke (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, Rechtsanwalt)

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

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for first, a declaration of invalidity of the clause of the applicant's contract providing for the automatic termination of the employment contract in the event that the applicant is not selected in an external selection procedure for the OHIM, and second a declaration that selection procedures OHMI/AD/01/07, OHMI/AD/02/07, OHMI/AST/01/07 and OHMI/AST/02/02 have no effect on the contract of the applicant. In addition, application for damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               The Tribunal should set aside the letter from OHIM of 12 March 2009 and the decisions of OHIM contained in it, according to which the applicant's employment relationship is terminated with eight months' notice as of 16 March 2009, and declare that the applicant's employment relationship with the OHIM continues and has not been terminated. To the extent that the Tribunal considers it necessary, the applicant claims that the Tribunal should also set aside further letters from OHIM, classified by the applicant as related, of 3 August 2009 (setting a deadline of three months) and of 9 October 2009 (rejection of complaint).

               —

               The Tribunal should set aside or declare invalid the cancellation clause in Article 5 of the applicant's employment contract with OHIM, and in the alternative,
               declare that the applicant's contract of employment cannot in future be terminated on the basis of the cancellation clause in her employment contract;
               in the further alternative, declare that, in any event, the selection procedures referred to in the letter from OHIM of 12 March 2009 were not capable of entailing negative consequences on the basis of the cancellation clause.

               —

               The Tribunal should order OHIM to pay to the applicant damages of an appropriate amount at the discretion of the Tribunal for the non-material damage arising from the decisions referred to in paragraph 1 of the application.

               —

               In the event that, at the time of the Tribunal’s decision, the actual employment of the applicant and/or the payment by OHIM of salary owed to the applicant have already ceased as a result of the unlawful conduct of OHIM despite the continued existence of an employment relationship:

                           —

                           the Tribunal should declare that OHIM is under an obligation to continue to employ the applicant under the same conditions as hitherto and to reinstate her and order OHIM to compensate the applicant fully for the material damage suffered by her, in particular by paying any outstanding salary and all other expenses incurred by the applicant as a result of OHIM's unlawful conduct (after deduction of unemployment benefit received),

                           —

                           in the alternative, in the event that, in the present situation, for legal or practical reasons the applicant is not reinstated or re-employed under the same conditions as hitherto, order OHIM to pay the applicant compensation for the unlawful termination of her employment corresponding to the difference between her actual lifetime earnings and the lifetime earnings the applicant would have achieved if the contract had remained in force, taking into account pension benefits and other entitlements.

               —

               The Tribunal should order OHIM to pay the costs.


title: Case C-112/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel, Grenoble, by judgment of that Court of 20 February 2003 in the case of Société Financière & Industrielle du Peloux, formerly known as Sodequip Isolation, against Société AXA Belgium, formerly known as AXA Royale Belge, and Others

text:
C 112/16               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           10.5.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Grenoble (Commercial Chamber) of 20 February 2003,
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 13 March 2003, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of Société Financière & Industriel-
                                                                         le du Peloux, formerly known as Sodequip Isolation, against
The Swedish provisions on compulsory prior notification
                                                                         Société AXA Belgium, formerly known as AXA Royale Belge,
(announcement by the national food administration (Livsmed-
                                                                         and Others on the following question:
elsverket) of 25 December 1998 — SLV FS 1998:39) are
inconsistent with the purpose of Directive 89/662/EEC in so
far as they do not recognise other checks carried out in other
Member States. It is true that spot checks are allowed under             May the insured beneficiary of a contract of insurance
Directive 89/662/EEC but the possibility of carrying out spot
                                                                         concluded on its behalf between a policyholder (subscribed)
checks cannot be used by a Member State to monitor the                   and an insurer who are domiciled in the same Member State,
effectiveness of the observance by other Member States of                be made subject to the clause conferring jurisdiction on the
another regulatory system. Article 3 of Directive 89/662/EEC
                                                                         courts of that State, when it has not personally approved the
provides not only for official veterinary checks on production           clause, when the damage occurred in another Member State
establishments but also for regular checks to be carried out by
                                                                         and when it has also applied for insurers domiciled in the same
the competent authorities on establishments to ensure that the           State to be joined as parties to proceedings before a court of
products comply with the Community requirements or the                   that State?
requirements of the Member State of destination. Furthermore,
under Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 89/662 goods cannot
circulate freely if they are not marked in a certain manner and
accompanied by the necessary documentation.
The Swedish Government has submitted that the notification
requirement is necessary to ensure observance of the special
salmonella guarantees which apply on importation of certain
animal products into Sweden. In that connection, the Com-
mission points out that Directive 89/662/EEC offers a Member
State ample opportunity to take steps in the event that                  Action brought on 13 March 2003 by the Commission of
breaches of Community rules are discovered when samples are               the European Communities against the French Republic
taken. For instance, Article 8 of the Directive lays down the
procedure to be applied if breaches are discovered by the
Member State of destination.                                                                      (Case C-113/03)
( 1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13.                                                                        (2003/C 112/27)
                                                                         An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 March
                                                                         2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Ch. Giolitto and M. Shotter, acting as Agents,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel,
Grenoble, by judgment of that Court of 20 February 2003
in the case of Société Financière & Industrielle du Peloux,
formerly known as Sodequip Isolation, against Société
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
AXA Belgium, formerly known as AXA Royale Belge, and
                              Others
                                                                         —    Declare that, by failing to ensure that portability of non-
                                                                              geographic numbers was available on 1 January 2000 at
                         (Case C-112/03)                                      the latest, as required by Article 12(5) of Directive 97/33/
                                                                              EC ( 1), as amended by Article 1(2) of Directive 98/61/EC
                                                                              of the European Parliament and of the Council of
                         (2003/C 112/26)                                      24 September 1998 with regard to operator number
                                                                              portability and carrier pre-selection ( 2), the French Repub-
                                                                              lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                              and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’Appel,                    —    Order the French Republic to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 7 May 2002 in Case C-478/99: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Obligation to reproduce in national legislation the list of terms which may be regarded as unfair contained in the annex to Directive 93/13)

text:
C 144/4                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            15.6.2002
Replacement packaging of pharmaceutical products is objectively            2.     Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
necessary within the meaning of the Court’s case-law if, without such             the costs;
repackaging, effective access to the market concerned, or to a
substantial part of that market, must be considered to be hindered as
the result of strong resistance from a significant proportion of           3.     Orders the Kingdom of Denmark and the Republic of Finland
consumers to relabelled pharmaceutical products.                                  to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.                                                   (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                             7 May 2002
                                                                                18 April 2002
in Case C-478/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                  ties v Kingdom of Sweden (1)                             in Case C-9/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Korkein hallinto-oikeus): Palin Granit Oy v Vehmassa-
                                                                                lon kansanterveystyön kuntayhtymän hallitus (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts
— Obligation to reproduce in national legislation the list of              (Harmonisation of laws — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/
terms which may be regarded as unfair contained in the                     156/EEC — Concept of ‘waste’ — Production residue —
                     annex to Directive 93/13)                             Quarry — Storage — Use of waste — No risk to health or
                                                                                the environment — Possibility of recovery of waste)
                           (2002/C 144/05)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/06)
                    (Language of the case: Swedish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Finnish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-478/99, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: L. Parpala and P. Stancanelli) v Kingdom of Sweden                In Case C-9/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
(Agents: L. Nordling and A. Kruse), supported by Kingdom of                by the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) for a preliminary
Denmark (Agent: J. Molde), and by Republic of Finland                      ruling in the proceedings pending before that court instituted
(Agents: T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin): Application for a declaration           by Palin Granit Oy and Vehmassalon kansanterveystyön
that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative         kuntayhtymän hallitus, on the interpretation of Article 1(a) of
provisions necessary to implement in its national legal system             Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ
the annex referred to in Article 3(3) of Council Directive 93/             1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/
13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts               EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), the Court (Sixth
(OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29), the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to                 Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber,
fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (Fifth              J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of                  J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and M. Wathelet, Judges;                      R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 April 2002, in
L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal                    which it has ruled:
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
7 May 2002, in which it:
                                                                           1.     The holder of leftover stone resulting from stone quarrying
                                                                                which is stored for an indefinite length of time to await possible
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                  use discards or intends to discard that leftover stone, which is


title: Case T-9/10: Action brought on 8 January 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/34

         Action brought on 8 January 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-9/10)
   2010/C 80/57
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul OPOCE’s decision to reject the applicant’s bid, filed in response to the open call for tenders AO 10224 for the ‘Provision of electronic publications’ (1) Lot 2, communicated to the Applicant by a letter dated 29 October 2009 and all further related decisions of OPOCE including the one to award the contact to the successful contractors;

               —

               annul OPOCE’s decision to award contracts to Siveco/Intrasoft and Engineering/Intrasofitn, the field of the abovementioned call for tenders Lot 3, communicated to the Applicant by a letter dated 29 October 2009, in case one company is directly or indirectly associated to both framework contracts;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant’s damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 260 760;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application even if the current application is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case the applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant’s decision to reject its bid submitted in response to a call for an open tender for services of electronic publications (AO 10224) (Lot 2) and to award the contract to the successful contractor (Lot 2 and 3). The applicant further requests compensation for the alleged damages in account of the tender procedure.
   In support of its claims the applicant puts forward two pleas in law.
   First, the applicant argues that the defendant committed various and manifest errors of assessment and that it refused to provide sufficient justification or explanation to the applicant in breach of the financial regulation (2) and its implementing rules as well as in breach of directive 2004/18/EC (3) and of Article 253 EC.
   Second, it contends that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and failed to state reasons in respect of the applicant’s bid as the negative considerations given by evaluation committee were vague, unsubstantiated wrong and unfounded.

      (1)  OJ 2009/S 109-156511

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)

      (3)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114)


title: Case C-374/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of  21 July 2005  in Gintec International Import-Export GmbH v Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V.

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 21 July 2005 in Gintec International Import-Export GmbH v Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V.
   (Case C-374/05)
   (2005/C 315/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof of 21 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 12 October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Gintec International Import-Export GmbH and Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V. on the following questions:

               1.

               Do the provisions of 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 (1), as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (2), concerning a reference to statements of third parties who lack professional knowledge of the subject and advertising with a prize draw, set not only a minimum standard for the prohibition on advertising of a medicinal product to the general public, but also a definitive maximum standard?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           Is there an improper or misleading reference to a ‘claim of recovery’ within the meaning of Article 90(j) of Directive 2001/83/EC where the advertiser reports the result of a survey of third parties who lack professional knowledge of the subject with a positive overall evaluation of the medicinal product advertised, without attributing the evaluation to individual fields of application?

                           (b)

                           Does the lack of an express prohibition on advertising with a prize draw in Directive 2001/83/EC mean that this is basically permitted, or does Article 87(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC contain a catch-all provision on which the prohibition of internet advertising with a monthly low-value prize draw may be based?

               3.

               Are the above questions to be answered analogously in respect of Council Directive 92/28/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the advertising of medicinal products for human use (3)?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34.

      (3)  OJ 1992 L 113, p. 13.


title: Case T-300/05: Action brought on 21 July 2005 — Republic of Cyprus v Commission

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/19

         Action brought on 21 July 2005 — Republic of Cyprus v Commission
   (Case T-300/05)
   (2005/C 271/38)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Republic of Cyprus (represented by: Petros Kliridis)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               annul Regulation No 651/2005; (1)

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The contested regulation amends Regulation No 60/2004 (2) laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the new Member States. The applicant seeks its annulment, pleading first of all that the Commission lacked the power to adopt it. Specifically, the applicant submits that, under Article 41 of the 2003 Act of Accession, the Commission is empowered to adopt transitional measures if such measures are necessary to facilitate the transition from the regime which applied before the accession of the new Member States to the regime resulting from the application of the common agricultural policy. However, in the applicant's submission, the Commission did not establish that the measures which it adopted were necessary and therefore it lacked the power to adopt them. The applicant also pleads that Article 41 of the Act of Accession clearly implies that only the adoption of measures beneficial to the new Member States is permitted. In the applicant's submission, however, the measures adopted by the new regulation do not benefit the new Member States but, on the contrary, are a burden to them.
   In the same context, the applicant pleads that the reasons stated are inadequate, because it is not explained in a satisfactory manner what grounds led to the adoption of the contested regulation. The applicant further pleads breach of the principle of proportionality inasmuch as, in its view, the Commission has not demonstrated that the adoption of any measure at all was necessary while, in any event, the Commission could have adopted other measures to avoid the creation of sugar surpluses in the new Member States without having to adopt measures such as those contained in the contested regulation.
   In addition, the applicant submits that the contested regulation infringes the principle prohibiting retroactive legislation, since it imposes obligations which relate to quantities which had already accumulated before its entry into force.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission has infringed the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination because, it maintains, the contested regulation provides for different treatment between undertakings of the new Member States and those of the old Member States in relation to the consequences of a similar, if not identical, situation.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 651/2005 of 28 April 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ No L 108, 29.4.2005, p. 3).

      (2)  OJ No L 9, 15.1.2004, p. 8.


title: Removal from the register of C-271/96

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 199/21
          Removal from the register of C-202/96 (')                             Removal from the register of C-273/96 ( l )
                           ( 97/C 199/55 )                                                         ( 97/C 199/58 )
By order of 13 March 1997 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                        By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Case C-202/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                from the register of Case C-273/96 ( Reference for a
the Tribunal Administratif de Paris ): Societe des Labora             preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
toires Valda v. Fonds d'Intervention et de Regularisation              Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
du Marche du Sucre ( FIRS ).                                           Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
                                                                       against Bartolomeo Terranova.
H OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 294 , 5 . 10 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-271/96 (')
                           ( 97/C 199/56 )
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-295/96 ( ' )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                                               97/C 199/59 )
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-271/96 ( Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   By order of 17 March 1997 the President of the Court of
Roma,       Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli        ( Rome District        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           removal from the register of Case C-295/96 : Commission
against Antonio Nardi .
                                                                       of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
(■) OJ No C 294, 5 . 10 . 1996 .                                       (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-272/96 H
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-296/96 (')
                            ( 97/C 199/57 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/60 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-272/96 ( Reference for a                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   from the register of Case C-296/96 ( Reference for a
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                     preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Magistrates ' Court, Tivoli Division)): criminal proceedings           Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
against Alfredo Cipriani .                                             Magistrates' Court, Castelnuovo di Porto Division )):
                                                                       criminal proceedings against Giancarlo Pezzola .
 (') OJ No C 294, 5 . 10 . 1996 .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 3 June 1996 in Case T-41/96 R Bayer AG v. Commission of the European Communities

text:
20 . 7 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 210/ 17
applicant to the Translation Service of that institution and,          ( Netherlands ), represented by Martijn van Empel, of the
second, for her immediate reassignment to the post which               Amsterdam Bar, and Thomas Janssens, of the Brussels Bar,
she occupied at the Office for Official Publications of the            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
European Communities — the President of the Court of                   of Marc Loesch , 11 rue Goethe, v . Commission of
First Instance made an order on 22 April 1 996 , the operative         the European Communities ( Agent: Wouter Wils ) —
part of which is as follows :                                          application for suspension of operation of Commission
                                                                       Decision 95/55 1 /EC of 29 November 1995 relating to a
1 , the application for interim measures is dismissed;                 proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty
                                                                       ( IV.34.179 , 34.202 , 216 — Stichting Certificatie
2,   the costs are reserved.
                                                                       Kraanverhuurbedrijf and the Federatie Nederlandse
                                                                       Kraanverhuurbedrijven, OJ No L 312 , 1995 , p . 79 ), and for
                                                                       access to the file opened in the context of that proceeding —
                                                                       the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
                                                                       4 June 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                                                                       1 , the application for interim measures is dismissed;
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                       2,   the costs are reserved.
                        of 3 June 1996
in Case T-41 /96 R Bayer AG v. Commission of the
                    European Communities
                         ( 96/C 210/43 )
               (Language of the case: German)                          Action brought on 13 May 1996 by Kish Glass Company
                                                                       Limited against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
In Case T-41 /96 R : Bayer AG, with its registered office at
Leverkusen ( Germany ), represented by Joachim Sedemund ,                                       ( Case T-65 /96 )
of .the Cologne Bar, with an address for service in                                               ( 96/C 210/45 )
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May , 31
Grand-rue, against the Commission of the European
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Communities ( Agents : Wouter Wils and Klaus Wiedner ) —
application for suspension of the operation of Article 2 of
the Commission Decision of 10 January 199 6 relating                   An action against the Commission of the European
to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
(IV/34.279/F3 : Adalat ) — the President of the Court of First         Instance of the European Communities on 13 May 1996 by
Instance made an order on 3 June 1 996 , the operative part of         Kish Glass Company Limited, represented by Maurice
which is as follows :                                                   Byrne, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                       at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8— 10 , rue
                                                                       Mathias Hardt .
 1 , operation of Article 2 of the decision is suspended;
2,   costs are reserved.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — annul the decision of the Commission dated 2 1 February
                                                                            1996 in Case IV/34.193~Kish Glass,
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs .
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                        of 4 June 1996                                  The applicant, an Irish undertaking with limited liability,
 in      Case     T-18/96       R:      Stichting     Certificatie      which supplies glass products to all levels of trade ,
 Kraanverhuurbedrijf         and      Federatie      Nederlandse        challenges the Commission's refusal to take any action in
 Kraanverhuurbedrijven v. Commission of the European                    relation to its complaint concerning its supplier's abuse of a
                           Communities                                  dominant position . The abuse consisted in applying
                          ( 96/C 210/44 )                               dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with trading
                                                                        parties other than the applicant and restricting the supply of
                                                                        float glass to the applicant in 1987.
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                        In the applicant's view, the contested decision should be
 In      Case     T-18/96       R:      Stichting      Certificatie     annulled on the following grounds :
 Kraanverhuurbedrijf,         established      at     Culemborg
 ( Netherlands )       and         Federatie         Nederlandse        — Infringement of an essential procedural requirement and
 Kraanverhuurbedrijven,         established     at Culemborg                of the rights of the defence . The Commission did not give


title: Case C-395/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 August 2014  — Vodafone GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 August 2014 — Vodafone GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-395/14)
   2014/C 372/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vodafone GmbH

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Question referred

   Is Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) to be interpreted as meaning that a national regulatory authority which has required an operator with significant market power to provide mobile call termination services and has made the fees charged for this subject to authorisation in compliance with the procedure laid down in the aforementioned provision of the directive is required to carry out the procedure under Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/21/EC again before each authorisation of fees specifically requested?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.


title: Case C-165/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 3 April 2017 — Morgan Stanley & Co International plc v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 3 April 2017 — Morgan Stanley & Co International plc v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances
   (Case C-165/17)
   (2017/C 213/26)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Morgan Stanley & Co International plc

      Respondent: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

      Questions referred

               1.

               In circumstances where expenditure of a branch established in one Member State is exclusively used for the transactions of its principal establishment established in another Member State, must the provisions of Article 17(2), (3) and (5) and Article 19(1) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC, (1) incorporated in Articles 168, 169 and 173 to 175 of Directive 2006/112/EC, (2) be interpreted to the effect that the Member State in which the branch is registered is to apply to that expenditure the branch’s deductible proportion, determined according to the transactions carried out in the Member State in which it is registered and according to the rules applicable in that State, or to apply the proportion applicable to the principal establishment, or to deduct a specific proportion combining the rules applicable in the Member States in which the branch and the principal establishment are registered, with regard in particular to a possible option mechanism for imposing value added tax on transactions?

               2.

               What rules should be applied in the specific case where expenditure borne by the branch is used both for transactions in the Member State where it is registered and for transactions of the principal establishment, particularly as regards the concept of general costs and the proportion of tax deductible?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


Avis juridique important

|

E1996P0003

Request for an advisory opinion by Gulating lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 21 May 1996 in the case of Tor A. ASK and Others v. ABB Offshore Technology AS and Aker Offshore Partner AS (Case E-3/96)

Official Journal C 332 , 07/11/1996 P. 0010 - 0010

Request for an advisory opinion by Gulating lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 21 May 1996 in the case of Tor A. ASK and Others v. ABB Offshore Technology AS and Aker Offshore Partner AS (Case E-3/96) (96/C 332/09)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 21 May 1996 of Gulating lagmannsrett (Gulating Court of Appeal), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 28 May 1996, for an advisory opinion in the case of Tor A. ASK and Others v. ABB Offshore Technology AS and Aker Offshore Partner AS, on the following questions:1. Does Article 1 (1) of the Council Directive 77/187/EEC cover a situation where a time-limited contract regarding maintenance and modification expires, and the principal concludes new time-limited contracts covering the same or other maintenance work with one or more other contractors?2. Is it of any significance to the answer to question 1 that the contract falls under Council Directives 90/531/EEC and 93/38/EEC?3. Is it of any significance if employees and/or equipment are taken over or transferred between companies holding maintenance contracts with Statoil?


title: Case F-51/13: Action brought on 25 May 2013 — ZZ and Others v EIF

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/26

         Action brought on 25 May 2013 — ZZ and Others v EIF
   (Case F-51/13)
   (2013/C 226/35)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Fund

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   First, annulment of the decisions included in the salary slips for the month of February 2013, setting the annual adjustment of salaries at only 1.8 % for the year 2013 and annulment of subsequent salary slips. Second, the subsequent application to order the institution to pay damages for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision contained in the applicants’ salary slips for the month of February 2013, a decision setting the annual adjustment of salaries at only 1.8 % for the year 2013, and, therefore, annul the similar decisions contained in subsequent salary slips;

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation for the material damage (i) for the amount of salary corresponding to the application of the annual adjustment for 2013, that is an increase of 1.8 % for the period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2013; (ii) for the amount of salary corresponding to the results of the application of the annual adjustment of 1.8 % for 2013 on the amount of salaries which will be paid as from January 2014; (iii) for default interest on the amount of salary due until complete payment of the amounts due, the applicable default interest rate to be calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for the principal refinancing transactions, applicable during the period concerned, plus three points; and (iv) for damages for the loss of purchasing power;

               —

               order the defendant to pay each applicant EUR 1 000 by way of compensation for non-material harm;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-535/09 P: Appeal brought on 18 December 2009 by the Republic of Estonia against the judgment delivered on 2 October 2009 in Case T-324/05 Republic of Estonia v European Commission

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/28

         Appeal brought on 18 December 2009 by the Republic of Estonia against the judgment delivered on 2 October 2009 in Case T-324/05 Republic of Estonia v European Commission
   (Case C-535/09 P)
   2010/C 63/46
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Appellant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: L. Uibo, acting as Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Republic of Latvia

      Form of order sought

               —

               set the contested judgment aside in its entirety;

               —

               uphold the claims put forward at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Republic of Estonia considers that the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (‘the Court’) should be set aside on the following grounds:

               1.

               The Court distorted the evidence and misapplied the principle of collegiality laid down in Article 219 of the Treaty.

               2.

               The Court misinterpreted the Act of Accession and Regulation No 60/2004. (1)

                           (a)

                           The Court misinterpreted Article 6 of Regulation No 60/2004 by finding that the concept of ‘stocks’ in that provision extends also to household reserves.

                                       —

                                       The Court determined the objective of Regulation No 60/2004 and point 2 of part 4 of Annex IV to the Act of Accession too strictly by defining it as preventing ‘any’ disturbance.

                                       —

                                       The Court misinterpreted Article 7(1) and Article 6 of Regulation No 60/2004 by imposing an obligation on the Member States to eliminate excess stocks of sugar, for which there is no legal basis.

                           (b)

                           The Court misinterpreted Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation No 60/2004 by impermissibly narrowing its scope and excluding from it the circumstances in which sugar stocks were built up in Estonia.

                                       —

                                       The Court erred in assessing the evidence and distorted the evidence when analysing Estonia’s submission that the creation of household reserves played an essential part in the consumption and culture of Estonians.

                                       —

                                       The Court did not assess correctly the legitimate expectations of Estonia which had arisen in connection with the assurances given by the Commission during the accession negotiations.

                                       —

                                       The Court did not assess correctly the contribution of the EU to the building up of stocks.

               3.

               The Court wrongly took the view that the Commission did not infringe the obligation to state reasons.

               4.

               The Court wrongly took the view that the Commission did not infringe the principle of good faith.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2004 L 9, p. 8).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 25 June 1997 in Case T-7/96: Francesco Perillo v. Commission of the European Communities (Lomé Convention - European Development Fund - Non-payment of contract - Commission's non-contractual liability)

text:
16 . 8 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 252/25
3 . orders the parties, including the interveners, to bear                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     their own costs .
                                                                                of 19 June 1997
(') OJ No C 275 , 13 . 10 . 1993 .                                      in Case T-73/96: Miguel Forcat Icardo v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (')
                                                                        (Officials — Assignment to a new post — Interests of the
                                                                                service — Misuse ofpowers)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/54
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                          of 19 June 1997
in Case T-260/94 : Air Inter SA v. Commission of the
                   European Communities (' )
                                                                        In Case T-73/96 : Miguel Forcat Icardo, an official of the
                                                                        Commission, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges
(Air transport — Continuation of an exclusive concession                Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
on domestic routes — Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 —                      service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
Articles 5 and 8 — Rights of the defence — Audi alteram                 Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, v. Commission of the European
partem — Principle of good faith — Principle of                         Communities ( Agent: Julian Currall ) — application for
     proportionality -— Article 90 (2) of the EC Treaty)                annulment of the memorandum of the Director-General of
                                                                        Directorate-General IX ( Personnel and Administration ) of
                            ( 97IC 252/53 )                             11 August 1995 assigning the applicant to a new post
                                                                        with effect from 1 October 1995 and for compensation
                 (Language of the case: French)                         for the non-material damage suffered — the Court of First
                                                                        Instance ( Third Chamber ), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
                                                                        President, and C. P. Briët and A. Potocki, Judges; B.
In Case T-260/94 : Air Inter SA, having its registered office           Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
in Paray Vieille Poste, France, represented by Jean-Pierre              a judgment on 19 June 1997, in which it:
Spitzer, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand
Rue, against Commission of the European Communities                      1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it
(Agents: Rolf Wägenbaur and Lucio Gussetti ), supported                       concerns the claim for compensation based on the
by TAT European Airlines, represented by Antoine                             second paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff
Winckler, of the Paris Bar, and Romano Subiotto,                              Regulations of officials of the European Communities;
Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Elvinger and Hoss, 2, Place Winston
Churchill, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and                      2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
Northern Ireland ( Agents: John E. Collins and Richard
Plender) — application for annulment of Article 1 of                    3 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Commission Decision 94/291/EC of 27 April 1994 on a
procedure relating to the application of Council
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2408/92 ( Case VII/AMA/IV/93 —                     (') OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
TAT — Paris ( Orly) — Marseille and Paris ( Orly ) —
Toulouse ) ( OJ No L 127, 19 . 5 . 1994, p. 32 ) — the Court
of First Instance               ( Second    Chamber,     Extended
 Composition ), composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President, C. P.
 Briët and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzales,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
 19 June 1997, in which it:                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 25 June 1997
 1 . dismisses the application;                                          in Case T-7/96: Francesco Perillo v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (')
 2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those              (Lomé Convention — European Development Fund —
      of the proceedings in Case C-301 /94 which took place              Non-payment of contract — Commission's non
      before the Court of Justice and those incurred by TAT,                                    contractual liability)
      but not those incurred by the United Kingdom                                                   ( 97/C 252/55 )
      Government, an intervening party, which shall bear its
      own costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
                                                                         In Case T-7/96 : Francesco Perillo, trading as ITAM
                                                                         SIDER, residing in Altamura, Italy, represented by Mario
 ---pagebreak--- No C 252/26           \ EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  16 . 8 . 97
Spandre, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in          2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierre Thielen, 21 Rue
de Nassau, against Commission of the European                          (') OJ No C 133 , 4. 5 . 1996 .
Communities (Agent: Etiene Lasnet) — application under
Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of
the EC Treaty for compensation for the damage allegedly
suffered by the applicant in connection with a programme
financed by the European Development Fund — the Court
of First Instance ( First Chamber), composed of: A. Saggio,
President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; J.                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                                          of 9 July 1997
given a judgment on 25 June 1997, in which it:
                                                                      in Case T-455/93 : Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd and Others
                                                                             v. Commission of the European Communities (')
 1 . dismisses the application;                                        (Agriculture — Common organization of the market in
                                                                       the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector — Variable slaughter
                                                                      premium for sheep — Conditions for reimbursement of
2 . orders the defendant to pay the costs.                            clawback — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of
                                                                      protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of
                                                                                proportionality)
0 ) OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/57 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      In Case T-455/93 : Hedley Lomas ( Ireland ) Ltd, established
                                                                      in Dublin, Sharpbond Trading Ltd, established in
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Stratford-upon-Avon (United Kingdom), J. & S. A. Wood
                           of 2 July 1997                             ( Livestock Exports ), Ltd, established in Redditch (United
                                                                      Kingdom ), J. & S. A. Wood, established in Redditch,
in Case T-28/96: Doreen Chew v. Commission of the                     Lesley Dorothy Joan Mills, residing in Framlingham
                  European Communities (')                            ( United Kingdom), Live Sheep Traders Ltd, established in
                                                                      Framlingham, Livestock Sales Transport Ltd, established
(Officials — Representation — Staff Committee —                       in Framlingham, Peter Ziokowski, residing in Folkestone
          Elections — List of staff entitled to vote)                 ( United Kingdom), Brigstock Farms Ltd, established
                           ( 97/C 252/56 )                            in London, K. A. & S. B. M. Feakins, established
                                                                      in Llancloudy (United Kingdom ), Deaconvale Ltd,
                                                                      established in Gloucester ( United Kingdom), represented
                                                                      by Conor Quigley, Barrister, of the Bar of England and
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      Wales, instructed by A. M. Burstow, Solicitor, Crawley,
                                                                      with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                      Chambers of Jean-Marie Bauler, 42 Grand-Rue, against
In Case T-28/96 : Doreen Chew, a member of the local                  Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
staff of the Commission of the European Communities,                  Thomas Van Rijn, Christopher Docksey and Philippa
residing at Suva ( Fiji ), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of          Watson), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                      and Northern Ireland ( Agents : J. E. Collins and Gerald
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari ,                  Barling) — application for the annulment of Article 2 of
30 Rue de Cessange, v. Commission of the European                     Commission Regulation ( EEC) No 1922/92 of 13 July
Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —                       1992 amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 1633/84 laying
application, first, for annulment of the result of the                down detailed rules for applying the variable slaughter
elections held to provide for representation of staff serving         premium for sheep, repealing Regulation ( EEC ) No 2661 /
outside the Community, announced by the Electoral                     80 and determining the conditions for the reimbursement
Committee on 13 February 1995 , in so far as it named the             of the clawback following the judgment of the Court of
regional representative elected by the local staff                    Justice in Joined Cases C-38/90 and C-151 /90 ( OJ No
constituency for geographical area No 3 and, second, for              L 195 , 14. 7. 1992, p. 10 ) — the Court of First Instance
an order requiring the Commission to pay one Belgian                  ( Fourth Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, P.
franc as compensation for the non-material damage                     Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
allegedly suffered by the applicant — the Court of First              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Instance ( First Chamber), composed of: A. Saggio,                    9 July 1997, in which it:
President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges;
A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 2 July 1997, in which it:                                 1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                      2 . orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay the
1 . dismisses the action;                                                  costs of the Commission;


C 333/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.11.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-331/98 (1)                ordered the removal from the register of Case C-345/98:
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.
                       (1999/C 333/50)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
By order of 21 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-331/98: Commission of the European
Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.                                                 Removal from the register of Case C-20/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 333/53)
                                                                     By order of 30 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
       Removal from the register of Case    C-39/99 (1)              the register of Case C-20/98 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg):
                       (1999/C 333/51)                               Karl-Heinz Meinert v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Salzburg-
                                                                     Umgebung.
By order of 22 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-39/99: Commission of the European             (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-106/99 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 333/54)
       Removal from the register of Case C-345/98 (1)                By order of 5 July 1999 the President of the Court of Justice of
                                                                     the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
                       (1999/C 333/52)                               register of Case C-106/99: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Portuguese Republic.
By order of 29 June 1999 the President of the Fourth Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has              (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.


title: Case T-41/01: Action brought on 23 February 2001 by Rafael Pérez Escolar against Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.5.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 134/25
—     the principle of equality by applying measures to the             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      applicants that discriminate, without justification,
      between holders of rights who are broadcasters and
      holders who are not,                                              —      declare that the Commission has failed to fulfil its
                                                                               obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt any
—     Article 3(a)2 of the Directive                                           decision whatever regarding the complaint made by the
                                                                               applicant on 23 February 1999, relating to the State aid
      —    by concluding that the UK measures are compatible                   granted by the Spanish authorities to Banco Español de
           with Community law as regards the procedures                        Crédito SA; and
           adopted by the UK in drawing up and consulting on
           the UK measures.
                                                                        —      order the defendant to pay all the costs.
      —    by concluding that the UK measures are compatible
           with Community law, in that the measures infringe
           general principles of Community Law, Articles 43
           and 48 EC, the principle of free competition within
           the internal market, discrimination on grounds of
           nationality and infringement of the right to freedom         Pleas in law and main arguments
           of expression,
      —    by excluding from its assessment of the UK measures
           the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1996 (sec-            The applicant states that, on 23 February 1999, he lodged a
           tions 99 and 100) relating to the prohibition of             complaint with the Competition Commissioner, claiming that
           exclusivity and of mandatory licensing provisions.           a number of financial measures had been adopted by the
                                                                        Spanish authorities in favour of Banco Español de Crédito and
The applicants further submit that Article 3(a) of the Directive        Banco de Santander, which in his view amounted to State aid.
is inapplicable under Article 241 EC as was introduced by               Such aid, despite having been granted in 1994, was not fully
means of an unlawful legislative procedure and has no legal             analysed by the Commission at the time.
basis.
Finally, the applicants submit that, in adopting the contested
                                                                        That complaint was followed by the submission of a number
decision, the Commission infringed essential procedural safe-
                                                                        of documents and even a meeting between the applicant and
guards by failing to adopt it in accordance with its internal
                                                                        the relevant Commission services. Despite all the information
rules of procedure and by failing in its duty to state reasons
                                                                        and documents provide by the applicant in relation to
under Article 253 EC.
                                                                        the measures complained of, those services took no action
                                                                        whatsoever vis-à-vis the Spanish authorities. On 6 November
(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23.                                        2000, the applicant, taking the view that, despite the com-
                                                                        plexity of the case, the Commission had had more than a
                                                                        reasonable period in which to adopt a position with regard to
                                                                        the complaint made more than two years previously, lodged a
                                                                        document formally requesting that a decision be adopted by
                                                                        the Commission. Since that request, the period prescribed by
                                                                        Article 232 EC has more than expired without the Commission
                                                                        having defined its position.
Action brought on 23 February 2001 by Rafael Pérez
Escolar against Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties                                     The applicant claims that the Commission was under an
                                                                        obligation to adopt a decision on the complaint either
                          (Case T-41/01)                                declaring that the measures complained of do not constitute
                                                                        State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC or that they
                                                                        must be characterised as such but are compatible with the
                         (2001/C 134/55)                                common market, or by initiating the formal investigation
                                                                        procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC. The applicant
                                                                        takes the view, accordingly, that the Commission has failed to
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 February 2001 by Rafael Pérez
Escolar, residing in Madrid, represented by Fernando Moreno
Pardo.


title: Case C-449/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 12 August 2013 — CA Consumer Finance v Ingrid Bakkaus and Others

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 12 August 2013 — CA Consumer Finance v Ingrid Bakkaus and Others
   (Case C-449/13)
   2013/C 313/20
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CA Consumer Finance

      Defendants: Ingrid Bakkaus, Charline Bonato, née Savary, Florian Bonato

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers be interpreted as meaning that the onus is on creditors to prove that they have correctly and fully performed their obligations under the national law transposing the directive when a credit agreement is entered into and performed?

               2.

               Does Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers preclude a creditor from being able to prove that it has performed its obligations correctly and in full solely by means of a standard term in the credit agreement, whereby the consumer acknowledges the performance of those obligations, without that term being supported by documents issued by the creditor and supplied to the borrower?

               3.

               Must Article 8 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements (1) be interpreted as precluding the creditworthiness check from being carried out solely on the basis of information supplied by the consumer, without such information being effectively scrutinised against other evidence?

               4.

                           —

                           Must Article 5(6) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements be interpreted as meaning that it is not possible for a creditor to provide adequate explanations to the consumer if it has not checked the consumer’s financial situation and needs beforehand?

                           —

                           Must Article 5(6) of Directive 2008/48/EC be interpreted as precluding the adequate explanations to be supplied to the consumer being provided only in the contractual information mentioned in the credit agreement, without a specific document being drawn up?

      (1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).


23.11.2002             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 289/19
Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are                   Removal from the register of Case C-335/01 ( 1)
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the                                        (2002/C 289/35)
Community.
It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                        By order of 23 September 2002 the President of the Court of
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-335/01: Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v French Republic.
The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
ation of the directive into Greek law.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
( 1) OJ L 127 of 9.5.2001, p. 42.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-43/02 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-141/01 P        (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 289/36)
                         (2002/C 289/33)
                                                                        By order of 29 August 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 24 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
of the European Communities ordered the removal from                    from the register of Case C-43/02 (Referral for a preliminary
the register of Case C-141/01 P: Confederazione Generale                ruling by the Landgericht Stuttgart): Landesbausparkasse
dell’Industria Italiana (Confindustria) and Others v Com-
                                                                        Baden-Württemberg v Elisabeth Huttenlocher.
mission of the European Communities.
( 1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.                                             (1 ) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-295/01 ( 1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-59/02 (1)
                         (2002/C 289/34)
                                                                                (2002/C 289/37)
By order of 24 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                        By order of 12 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
register of Case C-295/01 (Referral for a preliminary ruling by         of the European Communities ordered the removal from
the Giudice di pace di Casale Monferrato): Fontaneto Industria          the register of Case C-59/02: Commission of the European
Alimentare Srl v ASL No 21 — Dipartimento di Prevenzione                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Servizio Igiene Alimenti e Nutrizione.
( 1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.                                            (1 ) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.