title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 16 June 1998 in Case C-162/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): A. Racke GmbH & Co. v Hauptzollamt Mainz (EEC/Yugoslavia Cooperation Agreement - Suspension of trade concessions - Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties - Rebus sic stantibus clause)

text:
15.8.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 258/9
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 Ð although the parties remain free to initiate proceedings
                                                                         on the merits of the case, the decision is usually
                      of 16 June 1998
                                                                         accepted by the parties as a final' resolution of their
in Case C-53/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 dispute,
the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam): HermeÁs
       International v FHT Marketing Choice BV (1)
                                                                    is to be regarded as a provisional measure' within the
(Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation Ð              meaning of Article 50 of the Agreement on Trade-Related
TRIPS Agreement Ð Article 177 of the Treaty Ð                       Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, as set out in
Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice Ð Article 50 of the            Annex 1 C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade
        TRIPS Agreement Ð Provisional measures)                     Organisation, approved on behalf of the Community, as
                                                                    regards matters within its competence, in Council
                       (98/C 258/15)
                                                                    Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994.
               (Language of the case: Dutch)                        (1) OJ C 95 of 30.3.1996.
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-53/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Arrondissementsrechtbank te                                        of 16 June 1998
Amsterdam for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings               in Case C-162/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
pending before that court between HermeÁs International             the Bundesfinanzhof): A. Racke GmbH & Co. v
(a partnership limited by shares) and FHT Marketing                                    Hauptzollamt Mainz (1)
Choice BV on the interpretation of Article 50(6) of the
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual                  (EEC/Yugoslavia Cooperation Agreement Ð Suspension
Property Rights, as set out in Annex 1 C to the Agreement           of trade concessions Ð Vienna Convention on the Law of
establishing the World Trade Organisation, approved on                         Treaties Ð Rebus sic stantibus clause)
behalf of the Community, as regards matters within its
                                                                                (98/C 258/16)
competence, in Council Decision 94/800/EC of
22 December 1994 (OJ L 336 of 23.12.1994, p. 1) Ð the
Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                           (Language of the case: German)
C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet, Presidents of
Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, L.
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
Sevón, Judges; Advocate General: G. Tesauro, Registrar:
L. Hewlett, Administrator, has given a judgment on
16 June 1998, in which it has ruled:                                In Case C-162/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                    of the EC Treaty by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a
                                                                    preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
A measure whose purpose is to put an end to alleged                 court between A. Racke GmbH & Co. and Hauptzollamt
infringements of a trade-mark right and which is adopted            Mainz Ð on the validity of Council Regulation (EEC)
in the course of a procedure distinguished by the following         No 3300/91 of 11 November 1991 suspending the trade
features:                                                           concessions provided for by the Cooperation Agreement
                                                                    between the European Economic Community and the
                                                                    Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (OJ L 315 of
Ð the measure is characterised under national law as an             15.11.1991, p. 1) Ð the Court composed of: G. C.
    immediate provisonal measure' and its adoption must            Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm
    be required on grounds of urgency',                            and M. Wathelet, Presidents of the Chambers, J. C.
                                                                    Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), J. L.
                                                                    Murray, D. A. O. Edward, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L.
Ð the opposing party is summoned and is heard if he                 Sevón, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; D.
    appears before the court,                                       Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
                                                                    Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 June 1998, in which
                                                                    it has ruled:
Ð the decision adopting the measure is reasoned and
    given in writing following an assessment of the
    substance of the case by the judge hearing the interim          Examination of the questions referred has disclosed no
    application,                                                    factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council
                                                                    Regulation (EEC) No 3300/91 of 11 November 1991
                                                                    suspending the trade concessions provided for by the
Ð an appeal may lodged against the decision, and                    Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic
 ---pagebreak--- C 258/10              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    15.8.98
Community       and   the   Socialist  Federal   Republic    of                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Yugoslavia.
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
( ) OJ C 197 of 6.7.1996.
 1
                                                                                of 17 June 1998
                                                                     in Case C-243/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Labour Court): Kathleen Hill and Ann Stapleton v the
                                                                        Revenue Commissioners and Department of Finance (1)
                                                                     (Equal treatment of men and women Ð National civil
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 servants Ð Job-sharing scheme Ð Incremental credit
                       of 16 June 1998                               determined on the basis of the criterion of actual time
                                                                                worked Ð Indirect discrimination)
in Case C-226/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Maastricht): criminal                                        (98/C 258/18)
    proceedings against Johannes Martinus Lemmens (1)
(Directive 83/189/EEC Ð Procedure for the provision of
information in the field of technical standards and
        regulations Ð Direct effect of the Directive)                               (Language of the case: English)
                        (98/C 258/17)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                        In Case C-243/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     of the EC Treaty by the Labour Court (Ireland) for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       tribunal between Kathleen Hill and Ann Stapleton and the
          published in the European Court Reports)                   Revenue Commissioners, Department of Finance Ð on the
                                                                     interpretation of Council Directive 75/117/EEC of
                                                                     10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the
In Case C-226/97: reference to the Court under Article 177           Member States relating to the application of the principle
of the EC Treaty from the Arrondissementsrechtbank                   of equal pay for men and women (OJ L 45 of 19.2.1975,
(District Court) Maastricht (Netherlands) for a                      p. 19) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H.
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that           Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F.
Court against Johannes Martinus Lemmens Ð on the                     Mancini, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch,
interpretation of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of                    Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
of information in the field of technical standards and               17 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
regulations (OJ L 109 of 26.4.1983, p. 8) Ð the Court,
composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the
Third and Fifth Chambers, acting for the President, G. F.
Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,
                                                                     Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Council Directive 75/
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; N. Fennelly,
                                                                     117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
                                                                     the laws of the Member States relating to the application
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                     of the principle of equal pay for men and women are to
16 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                     be interpreted as precluding legislation which provides
                                                                     that, where a much higher percentage of female workers
                                                                     than male workers are engaged in job-sharing, job-sharers
Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying
                                                                     who convert to full-time employment are given a point on
down a procedure for the provision of information in the
                                                                     the pay scale applicable to full-time staff which is lower
field of technical standards and regulations is to be
                                                                     than that which those workers previously occupied on the
interpreted as meaning that breach of the obligation
                                                                     pay scale applicable to job-sharing staff due to the fact
imposed by Article 8 thereof to notify a technical
                                                                     that the employer has applied the criterion of service
regulation on breath-analysis apparatus does not have the
                                                                     calculated by the actual length of time worked in a post,
effect of making it impossible for evidence obtained by
                                                                     unless such legislation can be justified by objective criteria
means of such apparatus, authorised in accordance with
                                                                     unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex.
regulations which have not been notified, to be relied
upon against an individual charged with driving while
under the influence of alcohol.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 229 of 2.9.1995.
(1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.


title: Judgment of the Court of 10 December 2002 in Case C-153/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Onderzoeksrechter in de Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Turnhout): Paul der Weduwe (Freedom to provide services — Banking activities — Employee of a credit institution established in a Member State and canvassing for clients in another Member State — National legislation on banking secrecy — Refusal to answer questions and to give evidence in a judicial investigation)

text:
C 19/2                    EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          25.1.2003
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
court between Universale-Bau AG, Bietergemeinschaft: 1. Hin-
teregger & Söhne Bauges.mbH Salzburg, 2. ÖSTU-STETTIN
Hoch- und Tiefbau GmbH, and Entsorgungsbetriebe Sim-
mering GesmbH, on the interpretation of Article 1(a), (b) and                                        of 10 December 2002
(c) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning
the coordination of procedures for the award of public works
contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54), and Council Directive 89/
665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the                        in Case C-153/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the               the Onderzoeksrechter in de Rechtbank van eerste aanleg
application of review procedures to the award of public supply                              te Turnhout): Paul der Weduwe ( 1)
and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended
by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to
the coordination of procedures for the award of public service
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),                   (Freedom to provide services — Banking activities —
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,                      Employee of a credit institution established in a Member
R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris (Rapporteur), and                        State and canvassing for clients in another Member State —
F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                     National legislation on banking secrecy — Refusal to answer
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment                 questions and to give evidence in a judicial investigation)
on 12 December 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (2003/C 19/03)
1.     A body which was not established to satisfy specific needs in
       the general interest not having an industrial or commercial
       character, but which has subsequently taken responsibility for
       such needs, which it has since satisfied, fulfils the requirement                           (Language of the case: Dutch)
       of the first indent of the second subparagraph of Article 1(b) of
       Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
       coordination of procedures for the award of public works
       contracts so as to be regarded as a body governed by public law        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
       within the meaning of that provision, on condition that the                                in the European Court Reports)
       assumption of responsibility for the satisfaction of those needs
       can be established objectively.
2.     Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on
       the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative
       provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the     In Case C-153/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
       award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended          EC by the Onderzoeksrechter in de Rechtbank van eerste
       by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to             aanleg te Turnhout (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in
       the coordination of procedures for the award of public service         the criminal proceedings before that court against Paul der
       contracts, does not preclude national legislation which provides       Weduwe, on the interpretation of Article 49 EC, the Court,
       that any application for review of a contracting authority’s           composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Third and
       decision must be commenced within a time-limit laid down to            the Sixth Chambers, acting for the President, M. Wathelet,
       that effect and that any irregularity in the award procedure           R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-
       relied upon in support of such application must be raised within       bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
       the same period, if it is not to be out of time, with the result       P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and
       that, when that period has passed, it is no longer possible to         J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
       challenge such a decision or to raise such an irregularity,            H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
       provided that the time-limit in question is reasonable.                a judgment on 10 December 2002, in which it has ruled:
3.     Directive 93/37 is to be interpreted as meaning that where, in
       the context of a restricted procedure, the contracting authority       The reference for a preliminary ruling by the Onderzoeksrechter in de
       has laid down in advance the rules for weighting the criteria for      Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Turnhout (Belgium), by order of
       selecting the candidates who will be invited to tender, it is          13 April 2000, is inadmissible.
       obliged to state them in the contract notice or tender documents.
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
( 1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 October 1999 in Case T-106/99: Karl L. Meyer v Commission of the European Communities (Inadmissibility — Actionable measure — Access to documents of the institutions — Difference between information and documents)

text:
C 6/22                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         8.1.2000
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Ulrich
                                                                          Wolker and Xavier Lewis) — application for annulment of the
                       of 15 October 1999                                 Commission decision of 30 March 1999 refusing a request
                                                                          from the applicant for information and for the Commission to
                                                                          be held liable — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
in Case T-94/96 (92): Martin Hagleitner v Commission of                   composed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
                 the European Communities (1)                             Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 27 October 1999,
                                                                          the operative part of which is as follows:
                        (Taxation of costs)
                                                                          1. There is no need to reach a decision on the third form of order
                                                                              sought in the application, to the effect that the Commission
                           (2000/C 6/38)
                                                                              should be ordered to provide the applicant with the information
                                                                              requested.
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          2. The application for annulment is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-94/96 (92): Martin Hagleitner, residing in Vienna,              3. The claim for damages is dismissed as inadmissible.
represented by Harald Svoboda, Rechtsanwalt, Vienna, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex                 4. The applicant shall bear his own costs, together with those
Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume, v Commission of the European                    incurred by the Commission.
Communities (Agents: Julian Currall and Bertrand Wägenbaur)
— application for taxation of the costs payable by the
defendant to the applicant pursuant to the judgment of the                (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
Court of First Instance of 15 September 1998 — the Court of
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: A. Potocki,
President, and C.W. Bellamy and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, made an order on 15 October 1999, the operative
part of which is as follows:
The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by the Commission to             ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the applicant is fixed in the sum of 9 500 euro, together with any
VAT payable on the fees of the applicant’s lawyer.                                               of 20 October 1999
(1) OJ C 247 of 24.8.1996.                                                in Case T-154/99 Stadtsportverband Neuss e.V. v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the contested
                                                                                measure — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (2000/C 6/40)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                       of 27 October 1999
                                                                          In Case T-154/99: Stadtsportverband Neuss e.V., established in
in Case T-106/99: Karl L. Meyer v Commission of the                       Neuss (Germany), represented by Heinz Günther Hüsch,
                    European Communities (1)                              Rechtsanwalt, Neuss, v Commission of the European Com-
                                                                          munities (Agents: Karen Banks and Klaus Wiedner) — appli-
                                                                          cation for annulment of the Commission decision of 6 April
(Inadmissibility — Actionable measure — Access to docu-
                                                                          1999 ordering repayment of financial aid granted to the
ments of the institutions — Difference between information
                                                                          applicant — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
                          and documents)
                                                                          composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and
                                                                          P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
                           (2000/C 6/39)                                  20 October 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                          1. It is unnecessary to adjudicate in the present action;
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          2. The Commission shall bear the costs.
In Case T-106/99: Karl L. Meyer, residing at Uturoa, Raiatea
(French Polynesia), represented by Jean-Dominique des Arcis,              (1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.
of the Papeete Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the office of Horst Pakowski, Ambassador of the Federal
Republic of Germany, 20-22 Avenue Emile Reuter, against


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 29 April 2004 in Case C-418/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main): IMS Health GmbH & Co. OHG v NDC Health GmbH & Co. KG (Competition — Article 82 EC — Abuse of a dominant position — Brick structure used to supply regional sales data for pharmaceutical products in a Member State — Copyright — Refusal to grant a licence)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   29 April 2004
   in Case C-418/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main): IMS Health GmbH & Co. OHG v NDC Health GmbH & Co. KG (1)

   (Competition - Article 82 EC - Abuse of a dominant position - Brick structure used to supply regional sales data for pharmaceutical products in a Member State - Copyright - Refusal to grant a licence)
   (2004/C 118/25)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-418/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between IMS Health GmbH & Co. OHG and NDC Health GmbH & Co. KG - on the interpretation of Article 82 EC - the Court, composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C. W. A. Timmermans and S. von Bahr, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it ruled:

               1)

               For the purposes of examining whether the refusal by an undertaking in a dominant position to grant a licence for a brick structure protected by copyright which it owns is abusive, the degree of participation by users in the development of that structure and the outlay, particularly in terms of cost, on the part of potential users in order to purchase studies on regional sales of pharmaceutical products presented on the basis of an alternative structure are factors which must be taken into consideration in order to determine whether the protected structure is indispensable to the marketing of studies of that kind.

               2)

               The refusal by an undertaking which holds a dominant position and owns a copyright of a brick structure indispensable to the presentation of regional sales data on pharmaceutical products in a Member State to grant a licence to use that structure to another undertaking which also wishes to provide such data in the same Member State, constitutes an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 82 EC where the following conditions are fulfilled:

                           —

                           the undertaking which requested the licence intends to offer, on the market for the supply of the data in question, new products or services not offered by the copyright owner and for which there is a potential consumer demand;

                           —

                           the refusal is not justified by objective considerations;

                           —

                           the refusal is such as to reserve to the copyright owner the market for the supply of data on sales of pharmaceutical products in the Member State concerned by eliminating all competition on that market.

      (1)  OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002


title: Case C-1/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that Court of 27 November 2003 in respect of the opening of insolvency proceedings against Susanne Staubitz-Schreiber

text:
C 71/10                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          20.3.2004
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-                 Pleas in law and main arguments
hof by order of that Court of 27 November 2003 in
respect of the opening of insolvency proceedings against
                                                                          The period allowed for implementing the directive ended on
                  Susanne Staubitz-Schreiber
                                                                          30 June 1996. The Republic of Finland has not enacted
                                                                          national legislation in a manner ensuring legal certainty and
                          (Case C-1/04)                                   clarity as regards the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of
                                                                          Council Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste
                                                                          and has not ensured that the above obligation is applied in
                         (2004/C 71/13)                                   practice.
                                                                          (1) European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of
                                                                              20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, OJ L 365
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        of 31.12.1994, p. 10.
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) of 27 November 2003, received at
the Court Registry on 2 January 2004, for a preliminary ruling
in respect of the opening of insolvency proceedings against
Susanne Staubitz-Schreiber on the following question:
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dioikitiko
                                                                          Protodikeio Athens by order of that Court of 30 Septem-
Does the court of the Member State which receives a request
                                                                          ber 2003 in the case of Sphakianakis AEBE against
for the opening of insolvency proceedings still have jurisdiction
                                                                                Hellenic Republic
to open insolvency proceedings if the debtor moves the centre
of his or her main interests to the territory of another Member
State after filing the request but before the proceedings are                                        (Case C-23/04)
opened, or does the court of that other Member State acquire
jurisdiction?                                                                                (2004/C 71/15)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by order of the Dioikitiko Protodikeio
                                                                          Athens (Administrative Court of First Instance, Athens) of
                                                                          30 September 2003, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                          26 January 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Action brought on 16 January 2004 by the Commission                       Sphakianakis AEBE against Hellenic Republic on the following
of the European Communities against the Republic of                       questions:
                             Finland
                                                                          1.    Does Article 31(2) of Protocol 4 (appended to the
                                                                                Europe agreement establishing an association between
                         (Case C-13/04)                                         the European Communities and their Member States, of
                                                                                the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other
                                                                                part) impose an obligation of mutual cooperation on the
                         (2004/C 71/14)                                         customs authorities of the Member State of importation
                                                                                to take into account decisions of the Hungarian courts
                                                                                concerning the validity of the investigations carried
                                                                                out by the authorities of the exporting State into the
An action against the Republic of Finland was brought                           correctness of the EUR.1 certificate in light of the fact
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                      that:
16 January 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by M. Konstantinidis and P. Aalto,                     (a)   the Hungarian authorities duly informed the cus-
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                          toms authorities of the importing State concerning
                                                                                the results of the investigation initially carried
                                                                                out concerning the inaccuracy of certain export
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                          certificates, stressing none the less that the validity
                                                                                of the investigation formed the subject matter of
                                                                                proceedings pending before the Hungarian courts
1.    Declare that the Republic of Finland has failed to enact                        and
      national legislation in a manner ensuring legal certainty
      and clarity as regards the second subparagraph of                         (b) the Hungarian authorities officially communicated
      Article 7(1) of Council Directive 94/62/EC on packaging                         to the customs authorities of the importing State the
      and packaging waste (1) and has failed to ensure that the                       outcome of those proceedings, that is to say the
      above obligation is applied in practice;                                        decisions of the abovementioned courts whereby it
                                                                                was finally ascertained that a number of EUR.1
2.    Order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.                                 certificates were accurate;


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 19 February 1998 in Case T-42/96: Eyckeler & Malt AG v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - Importation of high-quality beef ('Hilton beef') - Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 - Article 13 - Commission decision refusing remission of import duties - Rights of the defence - Manifest error of assessment)

text:
11.4.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 113/13
3. orders the applicants to bear all the costs.                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 19 February 1998
(1) OJ C 386, 31.12.1994 and OJ C 137, 3.6.1995.                    in Case T-142/96: Anne-Marie Toller v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                    (Officials Ð Opinion of the Invalidity Committee Ð
                                                                    Incompetence Ð Decision ordering removal from post Ð
                                                                    Application for re-examination Ð Material new factor Ð
                                                                                Time-bar Ð Admissibility)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                   (98/C 113/32)
                     of 19 February 1998
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-42/96: Eyckeler & Malt AG v. Commission of
                the European Communities (1)
                                                                    In Case T-142/96: Anne-Marie Toller, a former official of
(Action for annulment Ð Importation of high-quality beef            the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
(Hilton beef') Ð Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 Ð                     Brussels, represented by Benoît Lombart, Eric Boigelot and
Article 13 Ð Commission decision refusing remission of              Daniel Crucq, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
import duties Ð Rights of the defence Ð Manifest error              service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
                        of assessment)                              rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v. Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities (Agents: Julian Currall and Christine
                         (98/C 113/31)                              Berardis-Kayser) Ð application for annulment of the
                                                                    Commission's decision refusing to re-examine the decision
                                                                    of 1 July 1993 removing the applicant from her post for
               (Language of the case: German)                       incompetence Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                                                                    Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, and K.
                                                                    Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator,
In Case T-42/96: Eyckeler & Malt AG, established in                 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 February
                                                                    1998, in which it:
Hilden (Germany), represented by Dietrich Ehle and
Volker Schiller, Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc                   1. dismisses the application as inadmissible,
Lucius, 6 rue Michel Welter, supported by United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents:
initially Stephanie Ridley, subsequently John Collins and           2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
David Anderson) against Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Götz zur Hausen) Ð application for              (1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
annulment of the Commission Decision of 20 December
1995 (K(95) 3391 final) addressed to the Federal Republic
of Germany and concerning an application for remission
of import duties Ð the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber), composed of: A. Saggio, President, B.
Vesterdorf and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; J. Palacio
GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
judgment on 19 February 1998, in which it:                                               of 19 February 1998
                                                                    in Case T-169/96: Jean-Pierre Pierard v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
1. annuls the Commission's Decision of 20 December
     1995 addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany              (Representation of officials and servants of the
     and concerning an application for remission of import          Commission on administrative bodies and on organs set
     duties,                                                        up under the Staff Regulations Ð Staff assigned to posts
                                                                       outside the European Union Ð No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (98/C 113/33)
2. orders the Commission to pay the costs,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
3. orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
     Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.                        In Case T-169/96: Jean-Pierre Pierard, an official of the
                                                                    Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                    by Nicolas LhoeÈst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.                                            service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                    SARL, 30 rue de Cessange, v. Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and
                                                                    Christine Berardis-Kayser) Ð application for annulment of


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2003 in Case C-83/02: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Waste management — Articles 4(1) and 11 of Directive 96/59/EC on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT))

text:
C 184/16                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 2.8.2003
by failing to implement correctly:                                            Republic (Agent: E. Skandalou): Application for a declaration
                                                                              that, by failing to draw up or, in any event, to communicate to
—     Article 1, Article 6(1) to (4) and Article 12(1)(d) of                  the Commission within the prescribed period (by 16 September
      Directive 92/43, and                                                    1999) the plans, outlines and summaries required under
—     Article 2, Article 4(1) and (4) and Article 6 of Directive              Articles 4(1) and 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC of
      79/409,                                                                 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphe-
                                                                              nyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the Hellenic
the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under            Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive
Article 23 of Directive 92/43 and Article 18 of Directive 79/                 and the EC Treaty, the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
409, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, Presi-                  C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola
dent, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C.W.                    (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann                            General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 June
(Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann,                          2003, in which it:
V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 June 2003, in                 1.    Declares that, by failing to draw up, within the prescribed
which it:                                                                           period, summaries of inventories of equipment with PCB
                                                                                volumes of more than 5 dm3, plans for the decontamination
1.    Declares that by failing to implement in national law:                        and/or disposal of inventoried equipment and the PCBs
                                                                                contained therein, and outlines for the collection and subsequent
      Article 3(3), Article 10, Article 11 and Article 12(4) of                     disposal of equipment which is not subject to inventory, in
      Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conser-                     accordance with Articles 4(1) and 11 of Council Directive 96/
      vation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, and                   59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlori-
                                                                                nated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the
      —     Article 7 and Article 8 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC                 Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
            of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, and                  directive.
      —     by failing to implement correctly:
      Article 1, Article 6(1) to (4) and Article 12(1)(d) of Directive        2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
      92/43, and
      —     Article 2, Article 4(1) and (4) and Article 6 of Directive        (1) OJ C 118 of 18.05.2002.
            79/409,
      —     the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
            under the EC Treaty;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 19 June 2003
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fourth Chamber)                                   in Case C-161/02: Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                                nities v French Republic (1)
                             of 5 June 2003
in Case C-83/02: Commission of the European Commu-                            (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                    nities v Hellenic Republic (1)                            1999/94/EC — Failure to communicate implementing
                                                                                measures)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Waste
management — Articles 4(1) and 11 of Directive 96/59/EC                                                  (2003/C 184/31)
on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlori-
                    nated terphenyls (PCB/PCT))
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                            (2003/C 184/30)
                      (Language of the case: Greek)                           (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-161/02, Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-83/02, Commission of the European Communities                       (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda) v French Republic
(Agents: H. Støvlbæk and M. Konstantinidis) v Hellenic                        (Agents: G. de Bergues and E. Puisais): Application for a


title: Case T-45/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 12 July 2007 — Sanders and Others v Commission (Staff employed at the JET Joint Undertaking — Application of a legal status different from that of members of the temporary staff — Compensation for material damage sustained)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/26

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 12 July 2007 — Sanders and Others v Commission
   (Case T-45/01) (1)

   (Staff employed at the JET Joint Undertaking - Application of a legal status different from that of members of the temporary staff - Compensation for material damage sustained)
   (2007/C 199/47)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Stephen G. Sanders (Oxfordshire, United Kingdom) and the 94 applicants whose names appear in the annex (represented by: initially P. Roth QC, I. Hutton, E. Mitrophanous and A. Howard, Barristers, and subsequently P. Roth QC, I. Hutton and B. Lask, Barristers,)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially J.-P. Hix and A. Pilette and subsequently J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents)
   Re:
   Fixing, pursuant to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 October 2004 in T-45/01 Sanders and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II-3315, the amount of damages for the financial loss sustained by each of the applicants as a result of the fact that they were not recruited as temporary servants of the Communities during the time they worked at the Joint European Torus (JET) Joint Undertaking.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Orders the Commission to pay to each of the applicants damages corresponding to the sum indicated for each of them in column 6 of Annex 3 to the present judgment;

               2.

               Orders that that sum shall bear interest at the rate of 5.25 % from 31 December 1999 until actual payment;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the applicants incurred in respect of the entire proceedings before the Court of First Instance;

               4.

               Orders the Council to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 5.5.2001.


title: Case T-57/99: Action brought on 26 February 1999 by Albert Nardone against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.6.1999               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 160/23
    of interest since 1991 at a rate below the market rate on           Action brought on 26 February 1999 by Albert Nardone
    the social insurance contributions due. A private creditor            against the Commission of the European Communities
    would have behaved completely differently from the social
    insurance authorities, and the non-recovery of the social                                    (Case T-57/99)
    insurance contributions therefore constitutes State aid,
                                                                                (1999/C 160/44)
— infringement of article 92(1) of the EC Treaty, in that the
    non-recovery by the social security authorities of default
    surcharges was held not to constitute State aid,                                       (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— wrongful limitation of State aid to the financial advantage           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    accruing to Sniace as a result of the charging of interest by       European Communities on 26 February 1999 by Albert
    Fogasa on the sums due to it at a rate below the market             Nardone, residing at Piétrain (Belgium), represented by Georges
    rate. A private creditor faced with the acute liquidity             Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an
    problems of Sniace would not have tolerated that compa-             address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciare Myson SARL,
    ny’s failure, for years on end, to comply with the redemp-          30 rue de Cessange.
    tion plan contained in the repayment agreements; instead,
    it would have foreclosed the mortgage provided as security          The applicant claims that the Court should:
    and would, in view of Fogasa’s prior-ranking position in
    the event of the bankruptcy of Sniace, have simply                  — order the defendant to pay damages assessed provisionally
    accepted Sniace’s insolvency. The non-recovery of the                    at BEF 25 000 000 by way of compensation for material
    outstanding sums due to Fogasa therefore constitutes State               damage and at BEF 7 500 000 by way of compensation
    aid, as does                                                             for non-material damage,
                                                                        — annul, in so far as necessary, the implied decision of the
— the fact that Fogasa refrained from enforcing its entitlement              appointing authority rejecting the applicant’s request of
    to default interest,                                                     16 October 1997 as well as the explicit decision of the
                                                                             appointing authority rejecting the applicant’s complaint of
— manifest error of assessment in the application of article                 30 November 1998,
    92(1) of the EC Treaty, in that the element of aid was
    limited to the difference between the interest rate actually        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
    agreed and the market rate on the ground that the scope
    of the unlawful aid was difficult to determine,
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
— failure to comply with the obligation to provide a state-             The applicant has already brought an action (1) seeking the
    ment of reasons under article 190 of the EC Treaty, in that         annulment of the decision taken by the appointing authority
                                                                        following a request for recognition of an occupational disease
                                                                        (asbestosis) allegedly contracted during his employment in the
    — no reasons have been given as to why the non-recovery             Berlaymont building in Brussels and, in so far as necessary, the
        of sums due to the social security institution and              annulment of the implied decision rejecting the complaint
        Fogasa were regarded as corresponding to market                 lodged by the applicant against that decision.
        conditions,
                                                                        The present action seeks compensation for the damage suffered
    — the decision is in itself contradictory, because, in              by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s misconduct,
        the part of the decision dealing with the law, the              irrespective of whether or not the social security scheme
        Commission assessed the conditions of the debt                  organised by Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and by
        rescheduling agreements concluded with the social               the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the European
        insurance authorities and with Fogasa as not corre-             Communities against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational
        sponding to market conditions, yet in the operative             Disease is applied.
        part of the decision it limited the element of aid to the
        interest rate difference, and                                   The applicant is of the view that, by operation of the ordinary
                                                                        law relating to liability, he may claim damages despite the
                                                                        services received by him under Article 73, following the
    — the reasons contained in the part of the decision                 decision of 29 May 1997 concerning his occupational disease.
        dealing with the law did not contain any examination
        of the question whether, in the context of the third
                                                                        In his view, the Commission was guilty of illegal misconduct (2)
        debt rescheduling agreement, the social insurance
                                                                        which provides a ground for the Commission to be held liable
        authorities refrained from insisting on the repayment
                                                                        and for the payment of the damages sought.
        of social insurance contributions by 24 monthly
        instalments.
                                                                        (1) T-27/98 Nardone v. Commission (OJ C 94, 28.3.1998, p. 38).
                                                                        (2) See Case T-27/98.


title: Action brought on 16 February 1995 by Verenigung Nederlandse Cementindustrie against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-32/95)

text:
22. 4. 95           [IN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 101 / 13
D.    costs :                                                        Action brought on 16 February 1995 by Verenigung
                                                                     Nederlandse Cementindustrie against the Commission of
(iv) order the Commission to pay the costs of the action                                  the European Communities
      (including interest on the wrongly paid fine ).                                           (Case T-32/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 101 /30 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
— Infringement of essential procedural requirements :
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
    The Commission has infringed the basic rule of                   Instance of the European Communities on 16 February
    (procedural ) competition law, whereby, in a proceeding          1995 by Verenigung Nederlandse Cementindustrie,
    under Article 85 of the EC Treaty, the parties concerned         established at 's-Hertogenbosch, represented by P. A.
    must be given a prior opportunity to comment on the              Wackie Eysten, of the Hague Bar, with an address for service
    objections which the Commission intends to make                  in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 6 Avenue
    against them, and, more generally, the right to a fair           Guillaume .
    hearing, including the rule laid down by Article 6 of the
    European Convention for the Protection of Human
    Rights ( ECHR). In particular, it has infringed the rights       The applicant claims that the Court should :
    of the defence in that (a ) it allowed the applicant only
    limited access to an incomplete file; ( b ) the objections       A.      primarily:
    communicated by it to the applicant were incomplete
    and fragmentary; (c ) it called upon the applicant to              (i ) annul the (contested parts of the ) Decision of the
    submit a ' defence' against incomplete and fragmentary                   Commission of 30 November 1994 relating to a
    objections; ( d ) it included in the decision fresh                      proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (cases
    accusations against the applicant which were not                         IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement) (*), or at least annul
    levelled as such against the applicant in the statement of               it in relation to VNC, on the ground of infringement of
    objections; and (e ) it imposed on the applicant a                       essential procedural requirements;
    disproportionate fine, without making adequately clear
    in the statement of reasons for the decision which               B.      alternatively:
    specific facts were alleged against it, or at any rate
    imposed a fine which was out of all proportion to the             (ii ) annul the (contested parts of the ) Decision, or at least
    Commission's own finding that the applicant did not                      annul it in relation to VNC, on the ground that it
    participate in agreements implementing the alleged                       infringes the law, including Article 85 of the EC
    Cembureau agreement.                                                     Treaty, Regulation No 17/62 and general legal
                                                                             principles;
— Infringement of one or more higher-ranking rules of law,           C.      in tbe further alternative:
    including Articles 85 ( 1 ) and 190 of the EC Treaty,
    Regulation No 17/62 and/or general legal principles:             (iii ) (considerably) reduce the fine imposed on VNC;
                                                                             and
    The Commission has failed to show that the applicant
    acted contrary to Article 85 of the EC Treaty. More              D.      in any event:
    particularly, it has not demonstrated that the applicant
    'participated' in any agreement between Cembureau                (iv) order the Commission to pay the costs of the action
    members and in any concerted practice between ECEC                       (including interest on the wrongly paid fine ).
    members. That allegation is also incomprehensible —
    and, thus expressed, contrary to Article 190 of the EC           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    Treaty — in the light of the finding that the applicant did
    not participate in agreements implementing the alleged           — Infringement of essential procedural requirements
    Cembureau agreement.
                                                                           The Commission has infringed the basic rule of
    The amount of the fine imposed on the applicant was                    (procedural ) competition law, whereby, in a proceeding
    incorrectly determined, or at any rate incompatible with               under Article 85 of the Treaty, the parties concerned
    the law and/or general legal principles, including the                 must be given a prior opportunity to comment on the
    principle of proportionality, and is, at the very least,               objections which the Commission is minded to make
    inadequately reasoned.                                                 against them, and, more generally, the right to a fair
                                                                           hearing, including the rule laid down by Article 6 of the
                                                                           European Convention for the Protection of Human
(!) OJ No L 343 , 30 . 12 . 1994, p . 1 .                                  Rights ( ECHR). In particular, it has infringed the rights
                                                                           of the defence, in that ( a ) it allowed the applicant only
                                                                           limited access to an incomplete and impenetrable file; ( b )
                                                                           the objections communicated by it to the applicant were
 ---pagebreak--- No C 101 /14            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 4 . 95
      incomplete and fragmentary; (c ) it refused to hear the          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      applicant in relation to certain allegations which have
      resulted in the imposition of a fine; ( d ) it called upon the   The applicant states that, prior to being recruited following
      applicant to submit a defence against incomplete and             an open competition, she was seconded to the Commission
      fragmentary objections; and (e) it included in the               as a national expert; she therefore established her residence
      decision fresh accusations against the applicant which           in Brussels for a period limited to the duration of her
      were not levelled as such against the applicant in the           secondment, whilst retaining her principal residence in
      statement of objections.                                         Madrid. She now contests the fixing of Brussels as her place
                                                                       of recruitment .
— Infringement of one or more higher-ranking rules of law,
      including Article 85 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty,           The action is based on infringements of Article 71 of the
      Regulation No 17/62 and general legal principles:                Staff Regulations, of Articles 5 , 7, 8 , 9 and 10 of Annex VII
                                                                       to the Staff Regulations and of Article 2 of the general
      The Commission has failed to show that the applicant             provisions implementing Article 7 of Annex VII, as well as a
      acted contrary to Article 85 of the EC Treaty. More              manifest error of assessment. The applicant complains that
      particularly, it has not demonstrated that the applicant         the Commission disregarded the fact that she did not have a
      'participated' in the Cembureau agreement or in any              fixed and settled residence in Brussels and that Madrid was
      concerted practice relating to the exchange of price             still the permanent centre of her interests.
      information .
      Lastly, the applicant contends that the fine imposed on it
      should be cancelled or reduced, since it is not consonant
      with all the charges made against it, those charges are
      not supported by sufficient evidence and the fine
      imposed on it is inadequately reasoned .                         Action brought on 17 February 1995 by SA des Ciments
                                                                       Luxembourgeois against the Commission of the European
I 1 ) OJ No L 343 , 30 . 12 . 1994, p . 1 .                                                       Communities
                                                                                (Case T-34/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 101/32 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Action brought on 16 February 1995 by Maria Lidia
Lozano Palacios against the Commission of the European
                            Communities                                An action against the European Communities was brought
                                                                       before the Court of First Instance of the European
                          (Case T-33/95 )                              Communities on 17 February 1995 by SA des Ciments
                           ( 95/C 101 /31 )                            Luxembourgeois of Esch-sur-Alzette ( Luxembourg),
                                                                       represented by Joachim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne,
                 (Language of the case: French)                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                       of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
Instance of the European Communities on 16 February
1995 by Maria Lidia Lozano Palacios, residing in Brussels,             1 , annul Articles 1 , Article 2 ( 1 ) and (2 ) and Article 9 of
represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an                Commission Decision C(94 ) 3077 final of 30 November
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire               1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.                                                 Treaty ( Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement), in so
                                                                            far as they concern the applicant;
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       2 , in the alternative, reduce the fine of ECU 1 052 000
— annul the decision of the Commission of 12 April 1994                     imposed on the applicant by Article d of the contested
      in so far as it fixes Brussels as the applicant place of              decision to a reasonable sum;
      recruitment,
                                                                       3 , order the Commission to pay the costs .
— order the defendant to pay the applicant the installation
      allowance and daily subsistence allowance with default
      interest at the annual rate of 8% from the date of               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      becoming due until the date of payment, together with
      repayment of her travel expenses and expenditure                 The applicant raises the following procedural objections :
      incurred or to be incurred in the removal of her effects to
      Brussels, and                                                    — the Commission prejudiced the applicant's right to a fair
                                                                            hearing, in that it communicated to it only certain parts
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                    of the statement of objections,


title: Case F-78/08: Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Locchi v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/66

         Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Locchi v Commission
   (Case F-78/08)
   (2008/C 301/128)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Carlo Locchi (Besozzo, Italy) (represented by: F. Parrat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision to exclude the applicant from the list of officials pre-selected for the certification procedure 2007 and annulment of Commission decision C(2007) 5694 of 20 November 2007 relating to the general provisions implementing Article 45a of the Staff Regulations.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision to omit the applicant from the definitive list of candidates pre-selected for the certification procedure 2007 and, consequently, the decision also to omit the applicant from the list of candidates pre-selected with the best marks and from the list of applicants admitted to the certification procedure;

               —

               Annul Commission decision C(2007) 5694 of 20 November 2007 concerning the general provisions implementing Article 45a of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Annul, in so far as it is necessary, the decision to reject the complaint;

               —

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


title: Case T-32/00: Action brought on 18 February 2000 by Messe München GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
13.5.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 135/15
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             (2) order the reimbursement to the applicant of the OHIM
                                                                            appeal fee and order the OHIM to pay the costs of the
— annul the decision adopted on 25 November 1999 by the                     proceedings;
    Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
    the Internal Market in the appeal proceedings registered            (3) in the alternative, order that the disclaimer ‘Alle vorge-
    under number R 75/1999-3;                                               nannten Waren/Dienstleistungen für eine in München
                                                                            stattfindende Messe’ (‘All the aforementioned goods/ser-
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     vices in relation to a trade fair held in Munich’) be annexed
                                                                            to the specification of goods/services.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The trade mark con-           pictorial mark using the colours
cerned:                       white and red — application               The trade mark con-            the denominative and allegedly
                              No 840 132                                cerned:                        pictorial mark ‘electronica’ —
                                                                                application No 34587
Goods or service con-         Class 3, washing and dish-wash-
cerned:                       ing detergent                             Goods or service con-          goods and services in Classes 16,
                                                                        cerned:                        35 and 41 (including catalogues
                              Class 42, research in that field                                         relating to, and the organisation
                                                                                of, trade fairs in respect of build-
                                                                                ing components and construction
                                                                                groups in the electronics sector)
Decision contested be-        Refusal of registration by the
fore the Board of Ap-         examiner                                  Decision         contested     Refusal of registration by the
peal:                                                                   before the Board of Ap-        examiner
                                                                        peal:
Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94           Grounds of claim:              — incorrect        application    of
                              — Misuse of discretionary pow-                                               Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                                  ers                                                                      (EC) No 40/94
                                                                                — incorrect        application    of
                                                                                Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94
Action brought on 18 February 2000 by Messe München
GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                        Action brought on 17 February 2000 by Natalia Martinez
                                                                        Páramo and Others against the Commission of the Euro-
                         (Case T-32/00)                                                        pean Communities
                        (2000/C 135/29)                                                          (Case T-33/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 135/30)
                  (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                             (Language of the case: French)
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
18 February 2000 by Messes München GmbH, of Munich                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
(Germany), represented by Markus Graf, Rechtsanwalt, of                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Mitscherlich & Partner, Sonnenstrasse 33, Munich.                       European Communities on 17 February 2000 by Natalia
                                                                        Martı́nez Páramo, of Brussels, Anna Sodro, of Sterrebeek,
                                                                        Belgium, Inès Van Lierde, of Beersel, Belgium, Jean-Martial
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Marenne, of Brussels, Ron Moys, of West Malling, the United
                                                                        Kingdom, and Michael Horgan, of Brussels, represented by Eric
(1) annul the decision adopted on 17 December 1999 by the               Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
    Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation              Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
    in the Internal Market in appeal No R 177/1998-2;                   Rheinsheim.


title: Case C-426/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien by order of 15 November 2000 in the case of Paul Dieter Haug against Magistrat der Stadt Wien

text:
27.1.2001               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 28/19
Action brought on 16 November 2000 by the Com-                          Question 1
mission of the European Communities against the
                       Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                        Does Paragraph 9 of the LMG constitute an appropriate
                                                                        transposition of Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive
                           (Case C-423/00)                              79/112/EEC (1) of 18 December 1978?
                            (2001/C 28/35)
                                                                        Question 2
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on              Does Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 79/112/EEC make exhaustive
16 November 2000 by the Commission of the European                      provision concerning unlawful labelling, or does that provision
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,             provide for a minimum level of regulation which may be
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at           supplemented by national provisions?
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        Question 3
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations       Is Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 79/112/EEC to be construed to
      and/or administrative provisions necessary to comply              mean that a restriction on labelling (such as that in Paragraph
      with Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996                9(1) of the LMG in regard to health-related information) is
      on the control of major-accident hazards involving                only permissible where a prohibition appears to be an
      dangerous substances (1), and in any event by failing to          unavoidable necessity in order to prevent consumers from
      inform the Commission of such provisions, the Kingdom             being misled?
      of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      Directive;
                                                                        Question 4
2.    Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                        Can Paragraph 9(1) of the LMG be interpreted so as to comply
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         with the directive and the restriction on labelling mentioned
                                                                        therein be deemed to be in conformity with Article 2(1)(b) of
                                                                        Directive 79/112/EEC? This would be possible inasmuch as an
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put            intention to mislead is not required by Article 2(1)[(b)] as a
forward in Case C-407/00 (2); the time-limit for transposition          whole but is a second criterion of the unlawfulness of a label.
expired on 3 February 1999.
                                                                        (1) OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1.
(1) OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13.
(2) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.
                                                                        Action brought on 20 November 2000 by the Com-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                                                                        mission of the European Communities against the United
Verwaltungssenat Wien by order of 15 November 2000                                                  Kingdom
in the case of Paul Dieter Haug against Magistrat der Stadt
                                  Wien
                                                                                (Case C-427/00)
                           (Case C-426/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 28/37)
                            (2001/C 28/36)
                                                                        An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 Novem-
European Communities by order of 15 November 2000 of the                ber 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Independent Adminis-                represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal
trative Chamber, Vienna), which was received at the Court               Adviser, acting as agent, with an address for service at the
Registry on 20 November, for a preliminary ruling in the case           office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the
of Paul Dieter Haug against Magistrat der Stadt Wien (Vienna            Legal Service of the Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
municipal authorities) on the following questions:                      Luxembourg.


title: Case C-53/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Genova by order of that Court of 21 January 2004 in the case of Mr Marrosu and Mr Sardino against Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale San Martino di Genova e Cliniche Universitarie Convenzionate

text:
3.4.2004               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 85/17
Action brought on 9 February 2004 by the Commission of                 Are Article 1 of Directive 1999/70/EC (1) and clauses 1(b) and
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded
                                                                       by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP and put into effect by that directive
                          (Case C-51/04)                               to be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law (in
                                                                       force before the directive was implemented) which differentiate
                                                                       between employment contracts signed with the public auth-
                          (2004/C 85/29)                               orities and contracts with employers in the private sector
                                                                       by excluding the former from the protection afforded by
                                                                       establishing an employment relationship of indefinite duration
                                                                       in the event of an infringement of binding rules on successive
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before             fixed-term contracts?
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 Febru-
ary 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valerio Jordana and Minas Konstanti-           (1) OJ L 175 of 10.7.1999, p. 43.
nidis, of its Legal Service.
The Commission claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing to adopt, or in any event to
      notify to the Commission, the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 2000/69/EC (1) of the European Parliament and          Action brought on 10 February 2004 by the Commission
      of the Council of 16 November 2000 relating to limit             of the European Communities against the Republic of
      values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air,                                        Finland
      the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under Article 10 of that directive;                                                        (Case C-56/04)
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2004/C 85/31)
Pleas in law and arguments
                                                                       An action against the Republic of Finland was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
The period for transposition of the directive into national law        10 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
expired on 13 December 2002.                                           Communities, represented by K. Banks and M. Huttunen,
                                                                       acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
(1) OJ L 313, 13.12.2000, p. 12.
                                                                       The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                       1.    Declare that the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             obligations under Directive 2001/29/EC of the European
                                                                             Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the
                                                                             harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                       rights in the information society (1), since it has not
Genova by order of that Court of 21 January 2004 in the                      brought into force the laws, regulations and administrat-
case of Mr Marrosu and Mr Sardino against Azienda                            ive provisions necessary to comply with the directive, or
Ospedaliera Ospedale San Martino di Genova e Cliniche                        at least has not informed the Commission of them;
                 Universitarie Convenzionate
                                                                       2.    Order Finland to pay the costs.
                          (Case C-53/04)
                          (2004/C 85/30)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Genova               on 22 December 2002.
of 21 January 2004, received at the Court Registry on
10 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                       (1) OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.
Mr Marrosu and Mr Sardino against Azienda Ospedaliera
Ospedale San Martino di Genova e Cliniche Universitarie
Convenzionate on the following question:


8.12.2001             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 348/23
       Removal from the register of Case C-134/01 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-190/01 P (1)
                       (2001/C 348/45)                                                    (2001/C 348/46)
By order of 26 September 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 4 October 2001 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-134/01: Commission of the              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                from the register of Case C-190/01 P: Mannesmannröhren-
                                                                   Werke AG v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.