title: Case T-81/02: Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Margot Wagemann-Reuter against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities

text:
C 131/22               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1.6.2002
Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Margot Wagemann-                       Pleas in law and main arguments
Reuter against the Court of Auditors of the European
                           Communities
                                                                          The applicant pleads infringement of Article 40(4)(d) of the
                                                                          Staff Regulations of Officials, asserting that the defendant did
                                                                          not reinstate her in the post which fell vacant following the
                          (Case T-81/02)                                  upgrading to grade LA 4 of LA 5 posts within the German
                                                                          section of the Language Service of the Court of Auditors, and
                                                                          did not even examine the possibility of reinstating her in that
                                                                          post.
                         (2002/C 131/41)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Action brought on 25 March 2002 by Armand De Buck
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-84/02)
An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 18 March 2002 by Margot                                            (2002/C 131/42)
Wagemann-Reuter, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
Marc-Albert Lucas, lawyer.                                                                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 25 March 2002 by Armand De
                                                                          Buck, residing at Koersel (Belgium), represented by Lucas
—    annul the implicit decision of the Court of Auditors                 Vogel, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
     rejecting, on 22 May 2001, her request of 18 January
     2001 for reinstatement following her leave on personal
     grounds;                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority
—    annul the Court of Auditors’ decision of 12 December                       on 14 December 2001 rejecting the complaint lodged by
     2001 rejecting her administrative complaint of 14 August                   the applicant on 19 May 2001, by which he contested
     2001 against the first contested decision and the defend-                  the decision of 20 February 2001 making definitive the
     ant’s refusal to reinstate her in the LA 4 post of head of                 provisional decision of 1 July 1999 refusing to recognise
     translation unit which was vacant at the end of 2000 or                    as an occupational disease the disease of the blood
     the beginning of 2001 within the German section of the                     suffered by the applicant;
     Language Service, or at least to consider her suitability
     for the post in question;                                            —     annul the said decisions of 20 February 2001 and 1 July
                                                                                1999;
—    order the defendant to pay her, by way of compensation               —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
     for the damage to her career prospects resulting from the
     illegality of the contested decisions, a sum corresponding
     to the total remuneration which she would have received              Pleas in law and main arguments
     had she been reinstated in that post, together with interest
     at the annual rate of 8 % from the date on which those
     sums would have become due until payment thereof in                  In support of his claim, the applicant pleads infringement of
     full;                                                                Article 73(1) of the Staff Regulations and of Article 3 of the
                                                                          Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties against the risk of accident and of occupational disease.
—    order the defendant to pay her, by way of compensation               According to the applicant, the Commission committed a
     for the non-material damage suffered by her as a result of           manifest error of assessment, inasmuch as it based its decision
     the illegality of the contested decisions, the sum of                on medical documents the reasoning contained in which is
     2 500 euros, evaluated on a fair and reasonable basis;               vitiated by contradictions and incorrect assessments, arising
                                                                          from an erroneous analysis of the facts duly established.
—    order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2000 in Case C-286/98 P: Stora Kopparbergs BergsIags AB v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Statement of reasons — Liability for the infringement)

text:
C 45/2                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.2.2001
with an address for service in Brussels at the Chambers of               Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
Cuatrecasas, Avenue d’Auderghem, 78, 1040 Brussels —                     D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo,
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance               Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
of the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended                     on 16 November 2000 in which it:
Composition) of 14 May 1998 in Case T-348/94 Enso
Española v Commission [1998] ECR 11-1875, seeking to have               1.    Dismisses the appeal;
that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
being Commission of the European Communities, represented                2.    Orders Mo och Domsjö AB to pay the costs.
by R. Lyal and E. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents — the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President
                                                                         (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward,
P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November
2000 in which it:
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2.    Orders Enso Española SA to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
                                                                                of 16 November 2000
                                                                         in Case C-286/98 P: Stora Kopparbergs BergsIags AB v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                         (Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty
                                                                         (now Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Statement of reasons —
                                                                                Liability for the infringement)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (2001/C 45/04)
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
                     of 16 November 2000
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in Case C-283/98 P: Mo och Domsjö AB v Commission of                                         in the European Court Reports)
                the European Communities (1)
                                                                         In Case C-286/98 P, Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB, estab-
(Appeal Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now                lished in Falun (Sweden), represented by A. Riesenkampff and
Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Determination of the amount                  S. Lehr, Rechtsanwälte, Frankfurt am Main, with an address for
 — Statement of reasons — Power of unlimited jurisdiction)               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of R. Faltz, 6 Rue
                                                                         Heinrich Heine — appeal against the judgment of the Court of
                                                                         First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber,
                         (2001/C 45/03)                                  Extended Composition) of 14 May 1998 in Case T-354/94
                                                                         Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags v Commission [1998] ECR
                                                                         II-2111, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
                  (Language of the Case: English)                        party to the proceedings being Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by J. Currall and R. Lyal, of its Legal
                                                                         Service, acting as Agents — the Court (Fifth Chamber)
In Case C-283/98 P, Mo och Domsjö AB, established at                     composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,
Örnsköldsvik, Sweden, represented by A. Woodgate and                    M. Wathelet (Rapporteur); D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and
M. Smith, Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg          L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,
at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias                Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November 2000 in
Hardt — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First                which it:
Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber,
Extended Composition) of 14 May 1998 in Case T-352/94 Mo                 1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 May
och Domsjö v Commission [1998] ECR II-1989, seeking to                         1998 in Case T-354/94 Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags v
have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings               Commission in so far as it attributes to Stora Kopparbergs
being Commission of the European Communities, represented                      Bergslags AB responsibility for the infringements committed by
by R. Lyal, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, assisted by                 Feldmühle and Papeteries Beghin-Corbehem prior to September
J. Flynn — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La                       1990;
 ---pagebreak--- 10.2.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 45/3
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;                                4.    Orders Sarrió SA to bear its own costs and to pay two-thirds
                                                                                of those of the Commission of the European Communities
3.    Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;                        before the Court of Justice;
4.    Reserves the costs.                                                   5.    Order the Commission of the European Communities to bear
                                                                                one third of its own costs before the Court of Justice.
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 16 November 2000                                                         of 16 November 2000
                                                                            in Case C-294/98 P: Metsä-Serla Oyj and Others v Com-
in Case C-291/98 P Sarrió SA v Commission of the
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Appeal — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 — Joint and
(Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty,                                   several liability for payment of a fine)
now Article 81(1) EC — Concept of single infringement —
Information exchange — Order — Fine Determination of                                                    (2001/C 45/06)
the amount — Method of calculation — Statement of
                reasons Mitigating circumstances)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
                            (2001/C 45/05)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    (Language of the Case: Italian)                                             in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-294/98 P, Metsä-Serla Oyj, formerly Metsä-Serla Oy,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      established in Espoo (Finland), UPM-Kymmene Oyj, formerly
                    in the European Court Reports)                          United Paper Mills Ltd, established in Helsinki (Finland),
                                                                            Tamrock Oy, formerly Tampella Corporation, established in
                                                                            Tampere (Finland), Kyro Oyj Abp, formerly Oy Kyro Ab,
In Case C-291/98 P, Sarrió SA, established in Barcelona, Spain,
                                                                            established in Tampere, represented by H. Hellmann, Rechtsan-
represented by A. Mazzoni, of the Milan Bar, M. Siragusa, of
                                                                            walt, Cologne, and H.-J. Hellmann, Rechtsanwalt, Mannheim,
the Rome Bar, and F. Maria Moretti, of the Venice Bar, with an
                                                                            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger,
                                                                            Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe — appeal against the
Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill — appeal against
                                                                            judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                            Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of
Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of
                                                                            14 May 1998 in Cases T-339/94 to T-342/94 Metsä-Serla and
14 May 1998 in Case T-334/94 Sarrió v Commission [1998]
                                                                            Others v Comission [1998] ECR II-1727, seeking to have that
ECR II-1439, seeking to have that judgment set aside,the other
                                                                            judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
party to the proceedings being Commission of the European
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Communities, represented by R. Lyal, of its Legal Service,
                                                                            R. Lyal, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, assisted by
acting as Agent, assisted by A. Dal Ferro — the Court (Fifth
                                                                            D. Schroeder — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La
Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
                                                                            Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann
                                                                            D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo,
and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                            Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November 2000 in
                                                                            on 16 November 2000 in which it:
which it:
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the appeal.
1.    Sets aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of
      the Court of First Instance of 14 May 1998 in Case T-334/94           2.    Orders Metsä-Serla Oyj, UPM-Kymmene Oyj, Tamrock Oy
      Sarrió v Commission;                                                       and Kyro Oyk Abp to pay the costs.
2.    Fixes the amount of the fine imposed on Sarrió SA at
      EUR 13 750 000;                                                       (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
3.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;


title: Case C-102/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 28 April 1999 in the case of Welthgrove BV against Secretary of State for Finances

text:
10.6.2000                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 163/9
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
                                                                          Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 28 April 1999
                                                                          in the case of Welthgrove BV against Secretary of State
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case                                           for Finances
C-57/00 P.
                                                                                (Case C-102/00)
(1) OJ 2000 C 79, p. 22.
                                                                                (2000/C 163/14)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
                                                                          Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 28 April
                                                                          1999, received at the Court Registry on 20 March 2000, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Welthgrove BV against
                                                                          Secretary of State for Finances on the following questions:
Action brought on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of                       1. In light of the judgment in Polysar (1), particularly para-
 the European Communities against the French Republic                          graphs 13 and 14 thereof, where a parent company
                                                                               involves itself in the management of a subsidiary, is the
                           (Case C-84/00)                                      receipt of dividends from that subsidiary to be deemed to
                                                                               constitute consideration for such involvement within the
                                                                               meaning of Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive (2)?
                          (2000/C 163/13)
                                                                          2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does
                                                                               the mere fact that the appellant involves itself in the
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                               management of its subsidiary companies, in the manner
Court of Justice on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of the
                                                                               described in paragraph 14 of the Polysar judgment, mean
European Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,
                                                                               that the appellant is to be deemed a taxable person within
Principal Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                               the meaning of Article 4 of the Sixth Directive?
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          3. If the answer to the first or second question is affirmative,
                                                                               does such involvement come within the exception of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Article 13B(d)(5) of the Sixth Directive, that is to say within
                                                                               the transactions mentioned therein?
— declare that, by failing to allow the marketing within
     France of works made of precious metals which come                   (1) Case C-60/90 [1991] ECR I-3111.
     from other Member States and which indicate a standard               (2) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
     of fineness of ‘999 parts per thousand’, despite the fact                harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
     that that standard is commonly used in commercial                        turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
     practice, the French Republic has failed to comply with its              basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
     obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after
     amendment, Article 28 EC);
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          Action brought on 17 March 2000 by the Commission of
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
The Commission considers that the exclusion by the French                                           (Case C-103/00)
legislation (1) of a standard of fineness of 999 parts per
thousand, in relation to both works made from gold and                                             (2000/C 163/15)
works made from silver and platinum, cannot be justified
either on grounds of consumer protection or on grounds of
fair trading.                                                             An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 March
                                                                          2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser in
(1) In the present case, Articles 521 and 522 of the Code Général des
                                                                          its Legal Service, and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national
    Impôts (General Tax Code), as amended by Law 94-6.
                                                                          civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                          Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                          Kirchberg.


title: Case C-140/03: Action brought on 27 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 135/14               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          7.6.2003
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                     sale of optician’s goods, the Hellenic Republic is
      pay the costs.                                                          restricting the conditions of establishment of natural
                                                                              persons working as opticians in breach of Article 43 EC.
                                                                        —     Declare that, by enacting and maintaining in force Law
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               No 91/119 and Law No 2646/98 under which the
                                                                              establishment by a legal person of a shop for the sale of
                                                                              optician’s goods is subject to the following conditions:
The applicant claims that the contested memoranda do not
appear to have been issued as a result of one of the procedures
for making decisions exhaustively provided for by the Com-                    —     authorisation of the establishment and operation of
mission’s internal rules, C(2000) 3614 of 29 November 2000,                         the shop for the sale of optician’s goods must
which renders null and void the contested measures, not least                       have been granted to a recognised optician/natural
in view of their content which is of external effect.                               person, the person holding the authorisation to
                                                                                operate the shop must hold at least 50 % of the
                                                                                company’s share capital, and must participate at
It further claims that the contested measures were adopted by                       least to that extent in the profits and losses of the
the Commission in manifest breach of Article 32 of Regulation                       company, and the company must be in the form of
EC No 1260/99 (1) and of and of Rule 1.1 and 1.2 in the annex                       a collective or limited partnership,
to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 (2).
                                                                              —     the optician in question may participate at most in
Finally, it claims that the decisions adopted by way of the                         one other company owning a shop for the sale of
contested measures are invalid inasmuch as the statement of                         optical articles, subject to the conditions that the
reasons is defective and contradictory and because they                             authorisation for the establishment and operation
infringe the legitimate expectations of the applicant.                              of that shop is in the name of another authorised
                                                                                optician,
( 1) OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1.
( 2) OJ 2000 L 193, p. 39.                                                    the Hellenic Republic has restricted the conditions of
                                                                              establishment of legal persons operating as opticians in
                                                                              Greece in a manner inconsistent with Article 43 EC and
                                                                              has infringed Article 48 in conjunction with Article 43 EC
                                                                              by imposing on legal persons conditions not applicable to
                                                                              natural persons,
                                                                        —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Action brought on 27 March 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                          (Case C-140/03)
                                                                        Pleas in Law and Main Arguments
                          (2003/C 135/20)
                                                                        1.    Restrictions on freedom of establishment for natural
                                                                              persons.
An action against the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice on 27 March 2003 by the                     2.    Restrictions on freedom of establishment for legal per-
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                        sons.
Maria Patakia, of the legal service.
                                                                        3.    The abovementioned restrictions are not justified by the
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                  grounds put forward.
—     Declare that by enacting and maintaining in force Law
      No 971/79, which does not permit a qualified optician as
      a natural person to operate more than one shop for the


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 28 May 1998 in Case C-7/95 P: John Deere Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Admissibility - Question of law - Question of fact - Competition - Information exchange system - Restriction of competition - Refusal to grant an exemption)

text:
25.7.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 234/9
and Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty Ð the Court,                 interpretation of Article 21 of that Convention (OJ L 304
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                    of 30.10.1978, p. 36), as amended by the Convention of
C. Gulmann, (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet                  9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chamber, J. C. Moitinho              Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great
de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.                 Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ L 304 of 30.10.1978,
Edward, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Judges; N. Fennelly,                  p. 1; amended version of the Convention, p. 77) and the
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has             Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
given a judgment on 19 May 1998, in which it:                        Hellenic Republic (OJ L 388 of 31.12.1982, p. 1) Ð the
                                                                     Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
                                                                     President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de
1. Declares that, by classifying as special protection areas
                                                                     Almeida, D. A. O. Edward, (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón,
     territories whose number and total area are clearly
                                                                     Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
     smaller than the number and total area of the
                                                                     Principal Administrator for the Registrar, has given a
     territories suitable for classification as special
                                                                     judgment on 19 May 1998, in which it has ruled:
     protection areas within the meaning of Article 4(1) of
     Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
     conservation of wild birds, the Kingdom of the
     Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under          Article 21 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
     that directive;                                                 Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil
                                                                     and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention
                                                                     of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the                  Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great
     costs;                                                          Britain and Northern Ireland and by the Convention of
                                                                     25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its                Republic, is not applicable in the case of two actions for
     own costs.                                                      contribution to general average, one brought by the
                                                                     insurer of the hull of a vessel which has foundered against
                                                                     the owner and the insurer of the cargo which the vessel
(1) OJ C 77 of 16.3.1996.                                            was carrying when it sank, the other brought by the latter
                                                                     two parties against the owner and the charterer of the
                                                                     vessel, unless it is established that, with regard to the
                                                                     subject-matter of the two disputes, the interests of the
                                                                     insurer of the hull of the vessel are identical to and
                                                                     indissociable from those of its insured, the owner and the
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                charterer of that vessel.
                       (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 370 of 7.12.1996.
                       of 19 May 1998
in Case C-351/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de Cassation, France): Drouot Assurances SA v
Consolidated Metallurgical Industries (CMI Industrial
Sites), Protea Assurance, Groupement d'InteÂreÃt EÂcono-
             mique (GIE) ReÂunion EuropeÂenne (1)
(Brussels Convention Ð Interpretation of Article 21 Ð Lis                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
alibi pendens Ð Definition of same parties Ð Insurance                                      (Fifth Chamber)
                   company and its insured)
                                                                                of 28 May 1998
                        (98/C 234/16)
                                                                     in Case C-7/95 P: John Deere Ltd v Commission of the
                 (Language of the case: French)                                        European Communities (1)
                                                                     (Appeal Ð Admissibility Ð Question of law Ð Question
                                                                     of fact Ð Competition Ð Information exchange system Ð
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     Restriction of competition Ð Refusal to grant an
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                exemption)
In Case C-351/96: reference to the Court, pursuant to the                                    (98/C 234/17)
Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the
Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968
on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil                           (Language of the case: English)
and Commercial Matters, by the Cour de Cassation,
France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Drouot Assurances SA               In Case C-7/95 P: John       Deere Ltd, a company whose
and Consolidated Metallurgical Industries (CMI Industrial            registered office is in      Edinburgh (United Kingdom),
Sites),     Protea    Assurance,     Groupement       d'InteÂreÃt    represented by Hans-Jörg     Niemeyer and Rainer Bechtold,
EÂconomique (GIE) ReÂunion EuropeÂenne Ð on the                      Rechtsanwälte, Stuttgart,    with an address for service in
 ---pagebreak--- C 234/10              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 25.7.98
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11               Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
Rue Goethe Ð appeal against the judgment of the Court             L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator for the Registrar Ð
of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 27 October 1994 in          has given a judgment on 28 May 1998, in which it:
Case T-35/92 John Deere v Commission [1994] ECR
II-97, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
party to the proceedings being Commission of the                  1. Dismisses the appeal;
European Communities, represented by Julian Currall, of
its Legal Service, acting as Agent, and Nicholas Forwood
QC Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                      2. Orders New Holland Ford Ltd to pay the costs.
C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón,
                                                                  (1) OJ C 54 of 4.3.1995.
(Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator for the
Registrar Ð has given a judgment on 28 May 1998, in
which it:
1. Dismisses the appeal;                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
2. Orders John Deere Limited to pay the costs.                                           of 28 May 1998
                                                                  in Case C-3/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(1) OJ C 54 of 4.3.1995.                                          the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) Criminal
                                                                  Division: criminal proceedings against John Charles
                                                                           Goodwin and Edward Thomas Unstead (1)
                                                                  (Tax provisions Ð Harmonisation of laws Ð Turnover
                                                                  taxes Ð Common system of value added tax Ð Sixth
                                                                  Directive Ð Scope Ð Supply of counterfeit perfume
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                          products)
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                                     (98/C 234/19)
                       of 28 May 1998
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
in Case C-8/95 P: New Holland Ford Ltd v Commission
              of the European Communities (1)
(Appeal Ð Admissibility Ð Question of law Ð Question              In Case C-3/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
of fact Ð Competition Ð Information exchange system Ð             of the EC Treaty from the Court of Appeal (England and
Restriction of competition Ð Refusal to grant an                  Wales) Criminal Division for a preliminary ruling in the
                           exemption)                             criminal proceedings pending before that court against
                                                                  John Charles Goodwin and Edward Thomas Unstead on
                         (98/C 234/18)                            the interpretation of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC
                                                                  of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
                                                                  Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð Common
               (Language of the case: English)                    system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
                                                                  (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1) Ð the Court (First
                                                                  Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
In Case C-8/95 P: New Holland Ford Ltd, a company                 Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and P. Jann, (Rapporteur),
governed by the laws of England and Wales, established in         Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
Basildon (United Kingdom), represented by Mario                   Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 May 1998,
Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, Giuseppe Scassellati-Sforzolini        in which it has ruled:
and Francesca Moretti, of the Bologna Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Elvinger, Hoss & Preussen, Côte d'Eich Ð appeal against           On a proper construction of Article 2 of Sixth Council
the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second               Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
Chamber) of 27 October 1994 in Case T-34/92 Fiatagri              harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
and New Holland Ford v Commission [1994] ECR II-905,              to turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to       uniform basis of assessment, VAT is payable on the supply
the proceedings being Commission of the European                  of counterfeit perfumes.
Communities, represented by Julian Currall, of its Legal
Service, acting as Agent, and Leonard Hawkes, Solicitor           (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, (Rapporteur),


title: Case C-191/00: Action brought on 25 May 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
22.7.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 211/11
     of cocoa and sugar of OCT origin was possible without              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel
     limitation on the basis of Article 6 of Annex II to the            de Paris (Ninth Chamber) by judgment of 15 May 2000 in
     OCT Decision. The Commission seeks in Regulation                   the case of Edouard Balguerie, Bernard André Mercier
     No 465/2000 to impose a limit on an EC/OCT cumulation              and Patrick Thomas, and, as parties bearing civil liability,
     of origin upheld by the Council and thus seeks to avoid a          Société Balguerie, Société Pillet and Orkos Diffusion
     consequence which was clearly created by the OCT                   v Administration des Douanes; intervener: Ministère
     Decision and upheld by the Council;                                                                Public
— Infringement of Article 253 EC.
                                                                                (Case C-190/00)
( 1) OJ 2000 L 56, p. 39.
(2) OJ 1991 L 263, p. 1.                                                                          (2000/C 211/18)
(3) OJ 2000 L 55, p. 67.
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of 15 May 2000 by the
                                                                        Cour d’Appel de Paris (Court of Appeal, Paris) (Ninth
                                                                        Chamber), which was received at the Court Registry on 23 May
                                                                        2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Edouard Balguerie,
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsge-                  Bernard André Mercier and Patrick Thomas, and, as parties
richt Hamburg by order of that court of 3 May 2000 in                   bearing civil liability, Société Balguerie, Société Pillet and Orkos
the case of Dr Helga Kutz-Bauer v Freie und Hansestadt                  Diffusion v Administration des Douanes; intervener: Ministère
                             Hamburg                                    Public, on the following question:
                          (Case C-187/00)
                                                                        Do Commission Regulation No 4142/87 of 9 December
                          (2000/C 211/17)                               1987 (1) and the conditions imposed for its application in
                                                                        regard to imports of dates under the procedure for the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  suspension of customs duties by reason of the end-use of
European Communities by an order of the Arbeitsgericht                  the goods preclude such goods being imported in original
(Labour Court), Hamburg, of 3 May 2000, which was received              packaging with a content of less than or equal to 11 kg?
at the Court Registry on 19 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Dr Helga Kutz-Bauer v Freie und Hansestadt
Hamburg on the following questions:                                     (1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 4142/87 of 9 December 1987
                                                                            determining the conditions under which certain goods are eligible
1. Does a provision of a collective agreement for the public                on import for a favourable tariff arrangement by reason of their
     service which allows male and female employees to claim                end-use (OJ L 387 of 31.12.1987, p. 81).
     part-time working on grounds of age infringe Articles 2(1)
     and 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the im-
     plementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
     and women as regards access to employment, vocational
     training and promotion, and working conditions, if it
     allows part-time working on grounds of age only until the
     time when a full pension under the statutory old-age
     insurance scheme may first be claimed, and if the class of
     persons who may already draw a full pension at the age of
     60 consists almost exclusively of women, while the class           Action brought on 25 May 2000 by the Commission of
     who may draw a full pension only from the age of                     the European Communities against the Italian Republic
     65 consists almost exclusively of men?
2. Are national courts empowered, where provisions of                                             (Case C-191/00)
     collective agreements and legislative provisions are in
     breach of Directive 76/207/EEC (1) or Directive 79/7/
     EEC (2), to apply the corresponding provisions in favour of                                  (2000/C 211/19)
     the disadvantaged class, disregarding the restrictions which
     are contrary to Community law, until non-discriminatory
     rules are created by the parties to the collective agreement       An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
     and/or the legislature?                                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 May
                                                                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Karen Banks, Legal Adviser, and Laura Pignata-
(1) OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40.                                        ro, of the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
(2) OJ L 6 of 10.1.1979, p. 24.
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                        Cruz, of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                        Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 211/12                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22.7.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     so, are the provisions of Article L. 24-1(3) of the Code des
                                                                                Pensions Civiles et Militaires de Retraite in breach of the
— Declare that, by maintaining in force Article 8 of Law                        principle of equal pay?
     223/90 in respect of contracts entered into prior to
     28 February 1998, the Italian Republic has failed to                  (2) If Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome is not applicable, do
     transpose Article 11(3) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC (1)                the provisions of Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December
     on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by                     1978 (1) preclude France’s maintaining provisions such as
     law, regulation or administrative action in Member States                  those of Article L. 24-1(3) of the Code des Pensions Civiles
     concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities,              et Militaires de Retraite?
     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     that directive;
                                                                           (1) Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the pro-
— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                 gressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
                                                                               men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).
The pleas in law and main arguments
Although, in principle, Article 3(2) and (3) of Law No 122/98
transposes Article 11(2) and (3) of Directive 89/552/EEC, the
derogation provided for in the last sentence of Article 3(3) of
Law No 122/98, which provides that the new provisions on
interruptions by advertisements do not apply to programmes
for which the rights were acquired prior to 28 February 1998,              Action brought on 25 May 2000 by the Commission of
leaves in force, only in respect of such contracts, Article 8 of             the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Law No 223/90. From that point of view, therefore,
Article 11(2) of the directive has not been transposed into
                                                                                (Case C-207/00)
Italian law and Article 11(3) has not been correctly transposed,
albeit strictly in relation to those contracts entered into prior
to 28 February 1998.                                                                                (2000/C 211/21)
(1) OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23.                                                  An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 May
                                                                           2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Karen Banks, Legal Adviser, and Laura Pignata-
                                                                           ro, of the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                           Cruz, of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                           Kirchberg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Administratif, Chalons-en-Champagne (Second Chamber),                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
France, by judgment of that court of 25 April 2000 in the
case of Henri Mouflin v Recteur de l’Académie de Reims;
                                                                           — Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Syndicat Général de l’Éducation Nationale et de la Recher-
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
         che Publique CFDT de la Marne, intervenor
                                                                                Directive 97/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
                                                                                the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive
                          (Case C-206/00)                                       89/552/EEC (2) on the coordination of certain provisions
                                                                                laid down by law, regulation or administrative action
                          (2000/C 211/20)                                       in Member States concerning the pursuit of television
                                                                                broadcasting activities, specifically Article 1(1) amending
                                                                                Article 1(c) of Directive 89/552/EEC; Article 1(2) which
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          replaces Article 2 of Directive 89/552/EEC but not
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal Admini-                      Article 2(3), (4)(5) and (6); Article 1(3) which inserts
stratif (Administrative Court), Chalons-en-Champagne (Second                    Article 2a into Directive 89/552/EEC; Article 1(4) which
Chamber), of 25 April 2000, which was received at the Court                     introduces Article 3a(3) into Directive 89/552/EEC;
Registry on 25 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case                   Article 1(12), which replaces Article 10 of Directive
of Henri Mouflin v Recteur de l’Académie de Reims; Syndicat                     89/552/EEC, but not Article 10(2); Article 1(14) amending
Géneral de l’Éducation Nationale et de la Recherche Publique                   the first sentence of Article 12 of Directive 89/552/EEC;
CFDT de la Marne, intervenor, on the following questions:                       Article 1(15) which replaces Article 13 of Directive
                                                                                89/552/EEC; and finally Article 1(18) which adds a para-
(1) Do the pensions provided under the French retirement                        graph 2 to Article 16 to Directive 89/552/EEC, the Italian
     pension scheme for public servants rank as ‘pay’ under                     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
     Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome, now Article 141 EC? If                  directive;


title: Case C-442/13: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 18 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Sarah Nagy v Marcel Nagy

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/46

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 18 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Sarah Nagy v Marcel Nagy
   (Case C-442/13) (1)

   2014/C 315/77
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Action brought on 6 August 1996 by Federazione Italiana del Commercio Oleario against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-122/96)

text:
7 . 12 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 370/ 15
Action brought on 6 August 1996 by Federazione Italiana               discrimination laid down in the second subparagraph of
del Commercio Oleario against Commission of the                       Article 40 ( 3 ) of the Treaty, under which the conditions
                    European Communities                              applying to production or consumption may differ solely on
                        ( Case T-122/96 )                             the basis of objective criteria .
                          ( 96/C 370/33 )
                                                                      — Breach of the principle that penalties must be
                                                                           proportionate, lawful and clear
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European                      Penalties are the legal system 's response to infringements of
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     a rule . Consequently, it is not lawful to provide for a
Instance of the European Communities on 6 August 1996                 penalty in cases where it can be proved that a living
by the Federazione Italiana del Commercio Oleario                     substance has undergone a change owing to natural causes
( Federolio ), whose headquarters are in Rome, represented            and not because of unlawful conduct on the part of the
by Livia Magrone Furlotti , of the Rome Bar, with an                  beneficiary of aid.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe .
                                                                      Penalties must be commensurate with infringements and ,
                                                                      where no infringement can be found, no penalty can be
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          applied . Setting a penalty in cases of liability essentially
                                                                      without fault is unlawful on that ground also . For the
                                                                      packaging undertakings to bear such liability, being held
— annul Article 1 of Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 887/             accountable for quality variations in the product — which
     96 of 15 May 1996 amending Regulation ( EEC )                    are not only unconnected to voluntary actions on their part
     No 2677/85 laying down implementing rules in respect             but are also beyond their ability to control or alleviate —
     of the system of consumption aid for olive oil ( ! ),            goes beyond the purpose of the Community legislation on
                                                                      prevention of fraud connected to the receipt of aid .
                                                                      Consequently, it is a breach of the fundamental principle of
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                             proportionality.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      — Breach and misapplication              of the principle of
                                                                           impartiality
Federolio, a trade organization with responsibility for
distributing the aid for olive oil packaging undertakings,
seeks annulment of Regulation ( EC ) No 887/96 in so far as           Lack of adequate sampling procedures, or safeguards on the
it provides for a system of penalties based on liability              rules governing the taking and keeping of samples, exposes
essentially without fault, that is, they arise where a product        the packaging undertakings to the risk that they may
fails to comply with the product characteristics set out in           repeatedly be subjected to the checks and penalties
the tables annexed to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2568/91 ,                 provided for in the contested Regulation .
irrespective of whether such non-compliance was brought
about by the person penalized.
                                                                      — Misuse of powers — Infringement under the second
                                                                          paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty
Federolio puts forward the following pleas in support of its
application:
                                                                      The Commission — by providing in the contested
— Breach of the principle of equal treatment                          Regulation that penalties are to be applied even in cases
                                                                      where the discrepancy with the definition laid down in
                                                                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2568/91 is not due to fraud or fault
Whereas production aid is distributed without quality                 — undermines the reasoning on which the Community
checks or penalties where products do not match quality               legislation concerning the prevention of unlawful receipt of
requirements, the contested Regulation concerning                     aid is based, thereby obstructing the system of aid for the
consumption aid (which the applicant maintains is parallel            Community market in olive oil . The packaging
to production aid ) provides for very heavy financial                 undertakings will prefer to forego aid rather than incur
penalties to be imposed solely on packaging undertakings,             heavy penalties which are imposed independently of any
for the slightest discrepancy between a product and one of            responsibility whatsoever, and thus constitute a risk which
the 28 definitions set out in Regulation ( EEC ) No 2568/91 .         is totally beyond their control and cannot be affected by
                                                                      their management policies.
Such unequal treatment is not objectively justified and the
                                                                      (•) OJNoL 119 , 16 . 5 . 1996 , p . 16 .
discrimination between producers and other operators, on
the one hand, and packagers, on the other, is therefore
unacceptable. It is contrary to the principle of non


title: Case C-426/02: Action brought on 22 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 31/8                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            8.2.2003
—      order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            1.    The Commission considers that the tax which is levied in
                                                                                respect of the validation of invoices for the import of
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                pharmaceutical products that come from the Community
                                                                                is contrary to Article 12 of the EC Treaty (now Article 25
1.     The Commission considers that the measures taken are
                                                                                EC) and thus constitutes a charge having an effect
       not sufficient to ensure that the landfill site ‘Pera Galinon’
                                                                                equivalent to that of customs duty.
       is operated in a manner which does not create risks to
       the natural and man-made environment and which is
       consistent with the obligations arising from Article 4 of            2.    The Commission observes that classification as a charge
       the directive.                                                             having equivalent effect does not depend on what the
                                                                                charge is called or its amount.
2.     In the Commission’s view, the Hellenic Republic has
       exceeded the limits of the discretion conferred on it by             3.    None of the three exceptions preventing classification as
       Article 4 of the directive, since over a long period it has                a charge having equivalent effect applies.
       not taken effective action to avert pollution of the
       environment and to protect the health of inhabitants
                                                                            4.    Infringement of Article 133 of the EC Treaty.
       from the unlawful deposit of waste at the Pera Galinon
       site in the prefecture of Heraklion, Crete.
3.     The Commission observes that the landfill site in question
       operates without a permit which meets the conditions
       laid down in Article 9 of the directive.
( 1) OJ No L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
( 2) OJ No L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.                                          Action brought on 3 December 2002 by the Commission
                                                                            of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Finland
                                                                                (Case C-437/02)
Action brought on 22 November 2002 by the                                                             (2003/C 31/13)
Commission of the European Communities against the
                         Hellenic Republic
                          (Case C-426/02)                                   An action against the Republic of Finland was brought
                                                                            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                           (2003/C 31/12)                                   3 December 2002 by the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities, represented by M. Huttunen and T. van Rijn,
                                                                            acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 No-
                                                                            The Commission claims that the Court should
vember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, represented by Xavier Lewis and Minas Konstantinidis, of
its Legal Service.                                                          —     declare that
                                                                                1.    by failing to enact appropriate detailed rules for the
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                            distribution and use of the fishing rights allocated to
                                                                                it,
—      declare that by applying, for the benefit of the Ethniko
       Organismo Farmakon (National Organisation for Medi-
       cines), a charge in respect of the validation of invoices on               2.    and by failing to monitor compliance with the
       the import of raw materials for pharmaceutical use, semi-                        Community legislation on preservation by monitor-
       finished products and finished products from other                               ing fishing and related activities and by appropriate
       Member States or non-member countries, the Hellenic                              inspection of the fishing fleet and related activities,
       Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
       Articles 23, 25 and 133 of the Treaty establishing the                     3.    and by failing to prohibit provisionally fishing by
       European Community;                                                              vessels flying its flag or registered in its territory
                                                                                when the quotas allocated to it were deemed to be
—      order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                                    exhausted,


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 June 2001 in Case C-230/00: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement Directives 75/442/EEC, 76/464/EEC, 80/68/EEC, 84/360/EEC and 85/337/EEC — Pollution and nuisance — Waste — Dangerous substances — Pollution of the aquatic environment — Air pollution)

text:
28.7.2001                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 212/5
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,    —    Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pol-
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to          lution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged
      comply with Articles 1(c), 2(1) and (2), 2a, 3a(3) and                    into the aquatic environment of the Community (OJ
      10(1)(3) and (4), Article 12, inasmuch as it regulates                    1976 L 129, p. 23),
      teleshopping, and Articles 13 and 16(2) of,Council Directive
      89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain          —    Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on
      provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative                 the protection of groundwater against pollution caused
      action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television              by certain dangerous substances (OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43),
      broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of
      the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997,          —    Council Directive 84/360/EEC of 28 June1984 on the
      the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under           combating of air pollution from industrial plants (OJ
      that directive.                                                           1984 L 188, p. 20), and
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                        —    Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the
                                                                                assessment of the effects of certain public and private
                                                                                projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40),
(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                                                                           the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                           under Articles 9 of Directive 75/442, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Directive
                                                                           76/464, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 10 of Directive 80/68, 3, 4, 9 and 10
                                                                           of Directive 84/360, 2 and 8 of Directive 85/337 and
                                                                           Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC) — the
                                                                           Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President
                                                                           of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
                                                                           (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 June 2001, in which it:
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           1.   Declares that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                           (Third Chamber)                                      administrative provisions necessary to implement fully:
                                                                                —     Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on
                            of 14 June 2001
                                                                                waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of
                                                                                18 March 1991,
in Case C-230/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                   ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)                                —     Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on
                                                                                pollution caused by certain dangerous substances dis-
                                                                                charged into the aquatic environment of the Community,
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Failure to implement Directives 75/442/EEC, 76/464/EEC,                         —     Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on
80/68/EEC, 84/360/EEC and 85/337/EEC — Pollution and                                  the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by
nuisance — Waste — Dangerous substances — Pollution of                                certain dangerous substances,
           the aquatic environment — Air pollution)
                                                                                —     Council Directive 84/360/EEC of 28 June 1984 on the
                            (2001/C 212/08)                                           combating of air pollution from industrial plants, and
                                                                                —     Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the
                                                                                assessment of the effects of certain public and private
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                                   projects on the environment,
                                                                                the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          under Articles 9 of Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive
                     in the European Court Reports)                             91/156, 3, 4, 5, and 7 of Directive 76/464, 3, 4, 5, 7 and
                                                                                10 of Directive 80/68, 3, 4, 9 and 10 of Directive 84/360
                                                                                and 2 and 8 of Directive 85/337.
In Case C-230/00: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: H. van Lier, assisted by M.H. van der Woude and                    2.   Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
T.E.M. Chellingsworth) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent:
A. Snoecx) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to implement fully the following:                                (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
—     Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste
      (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive
      91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32),


title: Case T-40/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Latam Airlines Group and Lan Cargo v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Latam Airlines Group and Lan Cargo v Commission
   (Case T-40/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 048/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Latam Airlines Group SA, formerly Lan Airlines SA (Santiago, Chile); and Lan Cargo SA (Santiago) (represented by: B. Hartnett, Barrister, and O. Geiss, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Noë, N. von Lingen and G. Koleva, and subsequently by G. Koleva and A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and by G. Peretz, Barrister)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and M. Simm, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicants, and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Latam Airlines Group SA, formerly Lan Airlines SA, and Lan Cargo SA;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Latam Airlines Group and Lan Cargo;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case C-264/06: Action brought on 16 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/12

         Action brought on 16 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-264/06)
   (2006/C 190/20)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Maidani and R. Vidal Puig, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not laying down sanctions for infringements of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 16(3) of that regulation;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 16(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 provides: ‘The sanctions laid down by Member States for infringements of this Regulation shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive’. Under Article 19, the regulation entered into force on 17 February 2005. According to the information available to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not yet met the obligation to lay down sanctions, in the event of infringement of the regulation, which are effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of 23 September 2003 in Case C-109/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal): Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hacene Akrich (Freedom of movement for workers — National of a non-Member State who is the spouse of a national of a Member State — Spouse under a prohibition on entering and remaining in that Member State — Temporary establishment of the couple in another Member State — Establishment with a view to acquisition by spouse of a right under Community law to enter and remain in the first Member State — Abuse)

text:
15.11.2003             EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 275/9
3.   Articles 454 and 455 of Regulation No 2454/93 do not                   the national of a Member State, the Court, composed of:
     require the Member State which detects an offence or irregularity      G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P.- Puissochet, M. Wathe-
     in connection with a transport operation under cover of a TIR          let, R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of
     carnet, in addition to making the notifications prescribed in          Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, F. Macken,
     Article 455(1) of that regulation and an enquiry to the office         N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; L.A. Geel-
     of destination, to investigate the actual place where the offence      hoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator,
     or irregularity was committed and the identity of the customs          for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 September
     debtors, by seeking the administrative assistance of another           2003, in which it has ruled:
     Member State for elucidation of the facts.
(1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                                  1.   In order to be able to benefit in a situation such as that at issue
                                                                                in the main proceedings from the rights provided for in
                                                                                Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
                                                                                15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within
                                                                                the Community, a national of a non-Member State married to
                                                                                a citizen of the Union must be lawfully resident in a Member
                                                                                State when he moves to another Member State to which the
                                                                                citizen of the Union is migrating or has migrated.
                                                                            2.   Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 is not applicable where
                                                                                the national of a Member State and the national of a non-
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           Member State have entered into a marriage of convenience in
                                                                                order to circumvent the provisions relating to entry and residence
                                                                                of nationals of non-Member States.
                     of 23 September 2003
                                                                            3.   Where the marriage between a national of a Member State and
                                                                                a national of a non-Member State is genuine, the fact that the
in Case C-109/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                spouses installed themselves in another Member State in order,
the Immigration Appeal Tribunal): Secretary of State for                         on their return to the Member State of which the former is a
         the Home Department v Hacene Akrich (1)                                 national, to obtain the benefit of rights conferred by Community
                                                                                law is not relevant to an assessment of their legal situation by
                                                                                the competent authorities of the latter State.
(Freedom of movement for workers — National of a non-
Member State who is the spouse of a national of a Member
State — Spouse under a prohibition on entering and
remaining in that Member State — Temporary establishment                    4.   Where a national of a Member State married to a national of
of the couple in another Member State — Establishment                            a non-Member State with whom she is living in another
with a view to acquisition by spouse of a right under                            Member State returns to the Member State of which she is a
Community law to enter and remain in the first Member                            national in order to work there as an employed person and, at
                          State — Abuse)                                         the time of her return, her spouse does not enjoy the rights
                                                                                provided for in Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 because
                                                                                he has not resided lawfully on the territory of a Member State,
                                                                                the competent authorities of the first-mentioned Member State,
                         (2003/C 275/15)                                         in assessing the application by the spouse to enter and remain
                                                                                in that Member State, must none the less have regard to the
                                                                                right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the European
                                                                                Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamen-
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                tal Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950, provided
                                                                                that the marriage is genuine.
In Case C-109/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                  (1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.
EC by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom) for
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Secretary of State for the Home Department
and Hacene Akrich, on the interpretation of Community law
on freedom of movement for persons and the right to remain
of a national of a non-Member State who is the spouse of