title: Case T-75/99: Action brought on 15 March 1999 by Eli Lilly and Company Ltd against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
19.6.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 174/9
The applicant association concludes its arguments by asserting           The applicant raises the following pleas in law:
that insufficient reasons have been given for the requirement
that the aid in issue be repaid, and that this infringes the             — infringement of an essential procedural requirement in
principles of proportionality, the protection of legitimate                   that the contested regulation has provided no or at least
expectations, equal treatment and the prohibition of arbitrari-               no clear legal basis and/or that the joinder of two legal
ness.                                                                         bases results in a breach of the essential procedural
                                                                              requirements laid down in Directive 70/524/EEG; (2)
                                                                         — manifest error of assessment on the part of the Council in
                                                                              the application of Article 3(a)(e) of Directive 70/524/EEC;
                                                                         — infringement by the Council of fundamental principles of
                                                                              law forming part of the Community legal order, such as the
Action brought on 11 March 1999 by Alpharma Inc.                              proportionality principle, the principle of the protection of
          against the Council of the European Union                           legitimate expectations and the right to be heard and,
                                                                              finally;
                         (Case T-70/99)
                                                                         — insufficient reasoning for the contested regulation and,
                                                                              consequently, infringement by the Council of Article 190
                        (1999/C 174/19)                                       of the EC Treaty.
                   (Language of the case: English)                       (1) See also pending Case T-13/99 Pfizer Animal Health v Councilnot
                                                                             yet published in the OJ.
                                                                         (2) Council Directive of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in
An action against the Council of the European Union was                      feedingstuffs, OJ L 270, 14.12.1970, p. 1.
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 11 March 1999 by Alpharma Inc., Fort Lee
(the United States of America) represented by Mr. Gavin
Robert, London, and Mr. Bemard Van de Walle de Ghelcke,
Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11, Rue Goethe, Luxembourg.
                                                                         Action brought on 15 March 1999 by Eli Lilly and
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Company Ltd against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
— annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 of 17 Decem-
    ber 1998 amending, as regards withdrawal of the authoris-                                       (Case T-75/99)
    ation of certain antibiotics, Directive 70/524/EC concern-
    ing additives in feedingstuffs; or                                                             (1999/C 174/20)
— annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 in so far as it
    relates to withdrawal of authorisation of bacitracin zinc;                               (Language of the case: English)
    and
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— order the Council to pay the costs.                                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 15 March 1999 by Eli Lilly and
                                                                         Company Ltd, represented by Denis Waelbroeck and Dirk
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Brinckman, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, B.P. 39, L-2010.
The applicant, a company incorporated under the laws of the
State of Delaware and established in the United States of                The applicant claims that the Court should:
America, produces an antibiotic feed additive called bacitracin
zinc, in formulations appropriate for use as an antimicrobial            — declare, pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty that, in
growth promoter in animals. The applicant is the only                         breach of Article 176 of the EC Treaty, the Commission
manufacturer and the most important supplier of bacitracin                    has failed to take the necessary measures to comply with
zinc in the EEA and markets its additive, which is produced in                the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 June
Norway, under the trade name Albac.                                           1998 in Case T-120/96 (Lilly Industries Ltd v Commission);
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay compensation of ECU
The contested regulation(1) withdraws the autorisation to use                 2.6 million, in accordance with Articles 178 and 215,
and market bacitracin zinc as an additive in animal feeding-                  second paragraph, of the EC Treaty, for the material and
stuffs with effect from 30 June 1999. Banning bacitracine zinc                non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result
was found to be a necessary safeguard pending further                         of the Commission’s failure to act;
comprehensive evidence as to the possibility of antibiotic
resistance and the assessment of the risk of transfer from               — order the Commission to pay compensation of ECU 1 000
animals to humans. Such transfer of resistance would reduce                   per day from the date of the judgment in the present case
the effectiveness of bacitracin zinc used as a human medicinal                to the date until such time as the Commission has taken
product. Three other products, spiramycin, virginiamycin and                  the measures necessary in order to comply with the
tylosin phosphate, were banned at the same time. The ban is                   judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-120/96;
to be reviewed no later than 31 December 2000.                                and
 ---pagebreak--- C 174/10              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.6.1999
— order the Commission to bear the costs of the present                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
     proceedings.
                                                                        1. annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 590/99 of
                                                                             18 March 1999 supplementing the Annex to Commission
                                                                             Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geo-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              graphical indications and designations of origin under the
                                                                             procedure laid down in Article 17 of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                             No 2081/92, in so far as the designation ‘Spreewälder
In its judgment in Case T-120/96, (1) the Court of First Instance            Gurken’ is concerned;
annulled the Commission’s decision of 22 May 1996, rejecting
the request for inclusion of somidobove in Annex II to Council          2. order the defendant to pay the recoverable costs of the
Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community                          proceedings.
procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of
veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin. (2)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Following that judgment, the Commission, in breach of its
obligations under Article 176 EC, has failed to submit the              The applicant produces tinned cucumbers in accordance with
draft regulation including somidobove in Annex II to the                recipes which have been used for centuries in the Spreewald
abovementioned regulation to the Adaptation Committee.                  area. The seat of the applicant’s undertaking is located some
                                                                        40 to 50 km to the west of that area.
According to the applicant, no margin of discretion is left to
the Commission in this case, so that it is under an obligation          The applicant states that the designation ‘Spreewälder Gurken’
to draw up a draft regulation including somidobove in Annex II          has been included by the contested regulation in the annex to
and to submit it to the Adaptation Committee for approval.              Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 in accordance with Regulation
                                                                        (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indi-
                                                                        cations and designations of origin for agricultural products
Furthermore, on the basis of the case-law of the Court of               and foodstuffs (1). The contested regulation has the effect of
Justice, measures giving effect to a judgment annulling an act          henceforth prohibiting the use of the word ‘Spreewald’ where
of an institution must be taken within a reasonable time. More          the criteria laid down in that regulation are not fulfilled.
than seven months have elapsed since the judgment in Case
T-120/96 was delivered and the defendant institution has still          In the applicant’s view, the contested regulation is character-
failed to take any measure to comply with it, and has,                  ised, in particular, by the fact that it ignores all the legal and
moreover, publicly announced its unwillingness to do so.                factual circumstances and constitutes a dubious manoeuvre
                                                                        prompted by politically and economically motivated machi-
                                                                        nations (‘cliquish intrigues’) on the part of the Justice Ministry
(1) Judgment of 25 June 1998 in Case T-120/96 Lilly Industries Ltd      of the Federal Republic of Germany, which ultimately rec-
    v Commission of the European Communities [1998] ECR II-2573.        ommended to the Commission that the contested regulation
(2) OJ 1990 L 224, p. 1.                                                be adopted.
                                                                        The applicant complains of infringement of essential pro-
                                                                        cedural requirements in relation to the enactment of the
                                                                        contested regulation, especially as regards the application of
                                                                        the simplified procedure under Article 17 of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                        No 2081/92, which is inappropriate in the case of ‘Spreewälder
                                                                        Gurken’, the curtailment of legal remedies connected therewith
                                                                        and failure to observe the six-month time-limit laid down in
                                                                        Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92.
Action brought on 1 April 1999 by Jütro Konservenfabrik
GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the European                    The applicant further maintains that the contested regulation
                           Communities                                  is incompatible with Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92
                                                                        as regards the protection of geographical indications and/or
                                                                        designations of origin. Moreover, no provision has been made
                          (Case T-76/99)                                in the contested regulation for transitional arrangements to be
                                                                        applicable in the Federal Republic of Germany, as required in
                                                                        principle by Article 13(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92.
                         (1999/C 174/21)
                                                                        In addition, the applicant complains of a misuse of discretion-
                                                                        ary powers with regard to the demarcation of the ‘Spreewald
                  (Language of the case: German)                        economic area’, which has been artificially delimited and, in
                                                                        particular, incorrectly defined. The discretion conferred on the
                                                                        Community legislature in the definition of geographical areas
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               is not properly exercised where the geographic delimitation is
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              based — as it is in the present case — on extraneous
European Communities on 1 April 1997 by Jütro Konservenfa-              considerations such as political and economic needs. Further-
brik GmbH & Co. KG, of Jüterbog (Germany), represented by               more, to define a ‘Spreewald economic area’, having nothing
Rolf Schultz-Süchting, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs Boesebeek                whatever to do with the ‘Spreewald’ geographical region,
Droste, Hamburg, with an address for service in Luxembourg              instead of defining that region itself, which is well-known in
at the Chambers of Messrs Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 Rue                  commercial circles, amounts to an incorrect exercise of
Mathias Hardt.                                                          discretion.


title: Case C-292/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — Ragn-Sells AS v Sillamäe Linnavalitsus (References for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2008/98/EC — Waste management — Article 16(3) — Principle of proximity — Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 — Shipment of waste — Mixed municipal waste — Industrial waste and construction waste — Procedure for awarding a service concession for the collection and transport of waste produced on the territory of a municipality — Obligation for the future concessionaire to transport waste collected in the treatment facilities designated by the concession-granting authority — Nearest appropriate treatment facilities)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/14

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — Ragn-Sells AS v Sillamäe Linnavalitsus
   (Case C-292/12) (1)

   (References for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/98/EC - Waste management - Article 16(3) - Principle of proximity - Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 - Shipment of waste - Mixed municipal waste - Industrial waste and construction waste - Procedure for awarding a service concession for the collection and transport of waste produced on the territory of a municipality - Obligation for the future concessionaire to transport waste collected in the treatment facilities designated by the concession-granting authority - Nearest appropriate treatment facilities)
   2014/C 52/22
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Tartu ringkonnakohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ragn-Sells AS

      Defendant: Sillamäe Linnavalitsus

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tartu Ringkonnakohus — Interpretation of Articles 102 TFEU and 106(1) TFEU and Article 16(3) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3) — Award procedure for public contracts for the organised transport of municipal waste — Condition in the contract documents that the future concessionaire must transport the waste solely to two specified waste management centres operating in the municipality in question despite the presence in the market of other service providers fulfilling the requirements — Exclusive right to treat municipal waste — Abuse of dominant position.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, read in conjunction with Article 16 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, must be interpreted as:

                           —

                           permitting a local authority to require the undertaking responsible for the collection of waste on its territory to transport mixed municipal waste collected from private households and, as applicable, from other producers, to the nearest appropriate treatment facility established in the same Member State as that authority;

                           —

                           not permitting a local authority to require the undertaking responsible for the collection of waste on its territory to transport industrial and building waste produced on its territory to the nearest appropriate treatment facility established in the same Member State as that authority, where that waste is intended for recovery, it the producers of that waste are themselves required to deliver the waste either to that undertaking or directly to that facility.

               2.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU do not apply to a situation such as that in the main proceedings, which is confined in all respects within a single Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Case C-142/00 P: Appeal brought on 14 April 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 10 February 2000 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-32/98 and T-41/98 between, on the one hand, the Government of the Netherlands Antilles and, on the other hand, the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain

text:
12.8.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 233/11
1.    Article 2 of the First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of                anwalt, Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
      11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member           the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe — Appeal
      States concerning turnover taxes and Article 17(2), (3) and (5)       against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
      of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977              European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composi-
      on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating        tion) of 16 September 1998 in Cases T-133/95 and T-204/95
      to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:                 IECC v Commission [1998] ECR II-3645, seeking to have that
      uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning            judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being:
      that, in principle, the existence of a direct and immediate link      International Express Carriers Conference (IECC), established
      between a particular input transaction and a particular output        in Geneva, Switzerland, represented by E. Morgan de Rivery,
      transaction or transactions giving rise to entitlement to deduct      of the Paris Bar, and J. Derenne and M. Cunningham, of the
      is necessary before the taxable person is entitled to deduct input    Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
      value added tax and in order to determine the extent of such          Chambers of A. Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix, Commission of
      entitlement.                                                          the European Communities (Agent: K. Wiedner, assisted by N.
                                                                            Forwood), La Poste, represented by H. Lehman, of the Paris
2.    It is for the national court to apply the ‘direct and immediate       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
      link’ test to the facts of each case before it. A taxable person      Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch, United Kingdom of
      who makes transactions in respect of which value added tax is         Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The Post Office —
      deductible and transactions in respect of which it is not may         The Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward,
      deduct the value added tax in respect of the goods or services        President of the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and A.
      acquired by him, provided that such goods or services have a          La Pergola, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
      direct and immediate link with the output transactions in             R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 11 May 2000, the
      respect of which value added tax is deductible, without it being      operative part of which is as follows:
      necessary to take into account Article 17(2), (3) or (5) of the
      Sixth Directive 77/388. However, such a taxable person                1.    The appeal is dismissed.
      cannot deduct in its entirety the value added tax charged on
      input services where they have been utilised not for the purpose      2.    Deutsche Post AG shall pay the costs.
      of carrying out a deductible transaction but in the context of
      activities which are no more than the consequence of making           3.    International Express Carriers Conference and La Poste shall
      such a transaction, unless that person can show by means of                 bear their own costs.
      objective evidence that the expenditure involved in the acquisition
      of such services is part of the various cost components of the
      output transaction.                                                   (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
(1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
                                                                            Appeal brought on 14 April 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                            the European Communities against the judgment delive-
                                                                            red on 10 February 2000 by the Third Chamber of the
                      ORDER OF THE COURT                                    Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                            Joined Cases T-32/98 and T-41/98 between, on the one
                          (Fourth Chamber)                                  hand, the Government of the Netherlands Antilles and,
                                                                            on the other hand, the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain
                           of 11 May 2000
                                                                                (Case C-142/00 P)
in Case C-428/9 P: Deutsche Post AG v International
Express Carriers Conference (IECC), Commission of the
European Communities, La Poste, United Kingdom of                                                    (2000/C 233/22)
Great Britain and Northern Ireland and The Post Office (1)
                                                                            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 February
(Appeal — Competition — Abuse of a dominant position —                      2000 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                      Postal services — Remail)                             the European Communities in Joined Cases T-32/98 and
                                                                            T-41/98 between, on the one hand, the Government of the
                                                                            Netherlands Antilles and, on the other hand, the Commission
                           (2000/C 233/21)                                  of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of
                                                                            Spain, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                            Communities on 14 April 2000 by the Commission of the
                     (Language of the case: English)                        European Communities, represented by T. van Rijn, Legal
                                                                            Adviser, of the Commission’s Legal Service, with an address
In Case C-428/98 P: Deutsche Post AG, having its registered                 for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la
office in Bonn, Germany, represented by D. Schroeder, Rechts-               Cruz, of its Legal Service.
 ---pagebreak--- C 233/12               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12.8.2000
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                    follows that the Court of First Instance should have held
                                                                               that the regulations at issue were not of concern to the
—     set aside the judgment delivered on 10 February 2000 by                  Netherlands Antilles within the meaning of the fourth
      the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-32/98 and                  paragraph of Article 230 EC.
      T-41/98;
                                                                         —     Infringement of the law, in that the Court of First Instance
—     determining the case itself, declare the applications for                held that Regulations Nos 2352/97 and 2494/97 were of
      annulment of Regulations Nos 2352/97 (1) and                             direct concern to the Government of the Netherlands
      2494/97 (2) inadmissible;                                                Antilles: the consequences of those regulations for the
                                                                               Netherlands Antilles manifested themselves exclusively in
—     alternatively, refer the case back to the Court of First                 the socio-economic sphere, in that employment opportu-
      Instance;                                                                nities in the rice sector were potentially threatened and
                                                                               the island region stood to lose revenue from various types
—     order the applicant in the proceedings at first instance to              of taxes.
      pay the costs, including the costs of the proceedings at
      first instance.                                                    —     Infringement of the law, in that the Court of First Instance
                                                                               held that the Commission, in adopting Regulation
                                                                               No 2532/97, committed an error of law: by omitting, in
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                its assessment of the reasons for Regulation No 2352/97,
                                                                               to have regard to the detailed reasons given for the
—     Infringement of the law, in that the Court of First Instance             import-restricting measures contained in Regulation
      held that Regulations Nos 2352/97 and 2494/97 were of                    No 2494/97, despite the fact that such an assessment
      individual concern to the Government of the Netherlands                  undoubtedly involves consideration of the consequences
      Antilles: the contested measures of the Commission are                   of Regulation No 2494/97, the Court of First Instance
      applicable to imports from all OCTs and not solely to                    infringed the law. The two regulations form a whole,
      those from the Netherlands Antilles.                                     with the first of them, namely Regulation No 2532/97,
                                                                               constituting merely a vehicle for the practical application
      In the event that the Court of Justice rules that Artic-                 of Article 109 of the OCT decision by means of the
      le 109(2) of the OCT decision must be interpreted as                     second regulation.
      meaning that a regulation applicable to all OCTs is of
      individual concern to each OCT, that will necessarily
      mean that the OCTs are given a right of action comparable          (1) OJ 1997 L 326, p. 21.
                                                                         (2) OJ 1997 L 343, p. 17.
      with that conferred on Member States under the second
      paragraph of Article 230 EC. In that event, the concept
      of a measure being ‘of individual concern’ will to that
      extent be rendered effectively meaningless. The fact that
      an OCT accounts for the majority of imports into
      the Community does not by definition mean that the
      economy of that OCT is affected more than that of                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
      another OCT. The Court of First Instance committed an              Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order
      error of reasoning inasmuch as it accepted that criterion          of that court of 7 March 2000, in the cases of Boehringer
      for the purposes of assessing whether the negative                 Ingelheim AG and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma AG
      consequences of the regulations in issue made themselves           against Swingward Ltd, Boehringer Ingelheim AG and
      felt primarily in the territory of the Netherlands Antilles.       Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma AG against Dowelhurst
                                                                         Ltd, Glaxo Group Ltd against Swingward Ltd, Boehringer
—     Infringement of the law, in that the Court of First Instance
                                                                         Ingelheim AG and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma AG
      held that the Government of the Netherlands Antilles had
                                                                         against Dowelhurst Ltd, Glaxo Group Ltd against Dowel-
      an interest in bringing proceedings: the subject-matter of
                                                                         hurst Ltd, SmithKline Beecham plc, Beecham Group
      the dispute (namely, the trading regime between the
                                                                         plc and SmithKline & French Laboratories Ltd against
      Community and the OCTs) falls within the competence
                                                                         Dowelhurst Ltd and Eli Lilly & Company against Dowel-
      of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Netherlands
                                                                                hurst Ltd
      Antilles, as an autonomous entity, cannot independently
      bring an action in this matter. Consequently, it was for
      the Kingdom of the Netherlands to determine whether an                                      (Case C-143/00)
      action should be brought for annulment of the regulations
      concerned. The Netherlands Antilles does not have the                                       (2000/C 233/23)
      right to do so.
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      Nor can there be any question of any measures adopted              European Communities by an order of the High Court of
      by the Netherlands Antilles having been divested of their          Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, of 7 March
      legal consequences as a result of the regulations at issue.        2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 17 April
      In the present case, the Netherlands Antilles brought an           2000, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Boehringer
      action for annulment of regulations which affect the               Ingelheim AG and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma AG against
      economic position of specific undertakings and, consequ-           Swingward Ltd, Boehringer Ingelheim AG and Boehringer
      ently, employment opportunities within its territory. It           Ingelheim Pharma AG against Dowelhurst Ltd, Glaxo Group


title: Case F-67/14: Action brought on 17 July 2014  — ZZ v Council

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/26

         Action brought on 17 July 2014 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-67/14)
   2014/C 380/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to terminate the applicant’s employment at the end of his probationary period and compensation for the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 25 June 2013 of the Secretariat of the Council and the decision of 8 April 2014 of the appointing authority of the Council, by which the applicant’s employment was terminated;

               —

               order the defendant to pay, by way of damages, a sum calculated on the basis of the applicant’s monthly remuneration as a member of staff employed at Grade AST 3 (EUR 3  500) multiplied by the number of months expired between 1 July 2013 and the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case;

               —

               order the defendant to pay EUR 40  000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings.


title: Case T-271/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 December 2007 — Microsoft v Commission

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/51

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 December 2007 — Microsoft v Commission
   (Case T-271/06) (1)

   (2008/C 22/96)

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 29 June 1995 in Case C-135/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 89/618/Euratom - Admissibility)

text:
2 . 9 . 95           I KN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 229/7
Dimitrios Gouloussis ) v. Hellenic Republic (Agents:                            effective exercise of freedom to provide services and
Michael Apessos, Katerina Samoni-Rantou and Nana                                amending Directive 79/267/EEC;
Dafniou ) — application for a declaration that the Hellenic
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
Treaty by failing, in Case C- 109/94, to adopt or to                  2 . orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
communicate to the Commission within the prescribed
period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with Council Directive 90/618/EEC of              (])  OJ  No  C  161 , 11 . 6 . 1994 .
8 November 1990 amending, particularly as regards motor               (2)  OJ  No  L 330 , 29 . 11 . 1990, p . 44 .
vehicle liability insurance, Directive 73/239/EEC and                 (3)  OJ  No  L 172 , 4 . 7. 1988 , p . 1 .
Directive 88/357/EEC which concern the coordination of                (4)  OJ  No  L 330 , 29 . 11 . 1990 , p . 50 .
laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to
direct insurance other than life assurance ( 2 ), and by failing,
in Cases C-207/94 and C-225/94 , to adopt and, in the
alternative, to communicate to the Commission within the
prescribed periods the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply, respectively, with Second
Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988 on the
coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
provisions relating to direct insurance other than life
assurance and laying down provisions to facilitate the
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
effective exercise of freedom to provide services and
amending Directive 73/239/EEC ( 3 ), and Council Directive                                        ( Sixth Chamber)
90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of
                                                                                of 29 June 1995
laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to
direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the             in Case C-135/94: Commission of the European
effective exercise of freedom to provide services and                                Communities v. Italian Republic (')
amending Directive 79/267/EEC ( 4 ) — the Court ( Fifth               (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 89/61 8/Euratom
Chamber ), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the                                             — Admissibility)
Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O.                                               ( 95/C 229/ 13
Edward and L. Sevon, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 June 1995 ,
in which it:                                                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
1 . declares that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its                published in the European Court Reports)
     obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt
     within the prescribed periods the laws, regulations and
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with :
                                                                      In Case C-135/94 : Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities ( Agent: Antonio Aresu ) v. Italian Republic
     — Council Directive 90/618/EEC of 8 November                     ( Agent: Umberto Leanza ) — application for a declaration
          1990 amending, particularly as regards motor                that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
          vehicle liability insurance, Directive 73/239/EEC           administrative measures necessary to comply with Council
          and Directive 88/357/EEC which concern the                  Directive 89/61 8/Euratom of 27 November 1989 on
          coordination oflaws, regulations and administrative         informing the general public about health protection
          provisions relating to direct insurance other than life     measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a
          assurance,
                                                                      radiological emergency ( 2 ), the Italian Republic has failed to
                                                                      fulfil its obligations under that Directive and under the third
                                                                      paragraph of Article 161 and the first paragraph of
     — Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June                 Article 192 of the EAEC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth
          1988 on the coordination of laws, regulations               Chamber ), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler, President of
          and administrative provisions relating to direct            the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), C. N.
          insurance other than life assurance and laying down         Kakouris, J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; M. B. Elmer,
          provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of          Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
          freedom to provide services and amending Directive          judgment on 29 June 1995 , in which it:
          73/239/EEC, and
                                                                       1 . declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     — Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1 990                    and administrative measures necessary to comply with
          on the coordination of laws, regulations and                      Council Directive 89/61 8/Euratom of 27 November
          administrative provisions relating to direct life                 1989 on informing the general public about health
          assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the              protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken
 ---pagebreak--- No C 229/8              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2 . 9 . 95
      in the event of a radiological emergency, the Italian                  modified organisms, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that               fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
      Directive;
                                                                       2 . orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
2 . orders the Italian Republic to bear the costs.
                                                                       H OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
( ! ) OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7 . 1994 .                                     ( 2 ) OJ No L 117, 8 . 5 . 1990, p. 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 357, 7 . 12 . 1989 , p . 31 .                            ( 3 ) OJ No L 117, 8 . 5 . 1990, p . 15 .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                        of 5 July 1995
                           of 29 June 1995                             in Case C-21/94: European Parliament v. Council of the
       in Case C-l 70/94: Commission of the European                                           European Union (*)
             Communities v. Hellenic Republic (*)                      (Directive 93/89/EEC on the application by Member States
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                 oftaxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage ofgoods by
Non-transposition of Directives 90/219/EEC and                         road and tolls and charges for the use of certain
       90/220/EEC — Genetically modified organisms)                    infrastructures — Reconsultation of the European
                                                                                Parliament)
                            ( 95/C 229/14 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 229/ 15 )
                 (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(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-l 70/94 : Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Maria Kontou-Durande ) v. Hellenic                In Case C-21 /94 : European Parliament ( Agents : Johann
Republic ( Agents : Panagiotis Mylonopoulos and Nana                   Schoo and Jannis Pantalis ) v. Council of the European
Dafniou ) — application for a declaration that, by failing to          Union ( Agents : Antonio Sacchettini and Amadeu Lopes
adopt, or not notifying within the prescribed period, the              Sabino ) supported by Federal Republic of Germany
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to           ( Agents : Ernst Röder and Bernd Kloke) and by the United
comply with Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April                   Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agents :
1990 on the contained use of genetically modified                      Lucinda Hudson and Lindsey Nicholl ) — application for the
micro-organisms (2 ) and Council Directive 90/220/EEC of               annulment of Council Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October
23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment           1993 on the application by Member States of taxes on
of genetically modified organisms (3 ), the Hellenic Republic          certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road and
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the         tolls and charges for the use of certain infrastructures ( 2 ) —
Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: C. Gulmann,                      the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
President of the Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de                   F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann and
Almeida, D. A. O. Edward and L. Sevón ( Rapporteur ),                  P. Jann ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N.
Judges: F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,           Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur), J. L.
gave a judgment on 29 June 1995 , the operative part of                Murray, D. A. O. Edward, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and
which is as follows :                                                  L. Sevón, Judges; P. Leger, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
                                                                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 July 1995 in which
                                                                       it :
1 . declares that in not adopting within the prescribed
      periods the laws, regulations and administrative
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive            1 . annuls Council Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October
      90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of                    1 993 on the application by Member States of taxes on
      genetically modified micro-organisms and Council                       certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road
      Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the                           and tolls and charges for the use of certain
      deliberate release into the environment of genetically                 infrastructures;


title: Case C-423/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen (Sweden)) — Flora May Reyes v Migrationsverket (Request for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Right of residence in a Member State of a third-country national who is a direct descendant of a person having the right of residence in that Member State — Concept of ‘dependant’ )

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen (Sweden)) — Flora May Reyes v Migrationsverket
   (Case C-423/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Right of residence in a Member State of a third-country national who is a direct descendant of a person having the right of residence in that Member State - Concept of ‘dependant’)
   2014/C 85/12
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Flora May Reyes

      Defendant: Migrationsverket

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen — Interpretation of Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Right of resident in a Member State of a national of a third country aged over 21 years, who is a direct descendant of a person having the right of residence in that Member State — Notion of ‘dependent’ — Obligation on the direct descendant to prove that he has tried unsuccessfully to obtain employment or applied to the authorities of the State of origin for financial support to meet his needs, or otherwise tried to support himself.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State cannot require a direct descendant who is 21 years old or older, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, in order to be regarded as dependent and thus come within the definition of a family member under Article 2(2)(c) of that provision, to have tried unsuccessfully to obtain employment or to obtain subsistence support from the authorities of his country of origin and/or otherwise to support himself.

               2.

               Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a relative — due to personal circumstances such as age, education and health — is deemed to be well placed to obtain employment and in addition intends to start work in the Member State does not affect the interpretation of the requirement in that provision that he be a ‘dependant’.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012


title: Designation of Presidents of Chamber and assignment of Judges to Chambers

text:
C 259/14               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         9.9.2000
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Designation of Presidents of Chamber and assignment of                       to the Fifth Chamber
                      Judges to Chambers
                                                                             Ms Lindh (President of Chamber), Mr Garcı́a-Valdecasas
                        (2000/C 259/23)                                      and Mr Cooke, Judges;
At its plenary meeting on 4 July 2000, the Court of First
Instance decided, pursuant to Article 2(4) of the Council                    to the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition
Decision of 24 October 1988 and Articles 10 and 15 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in respect of             Ms Lindh (President of Chamber), Mr Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
the period between 1 October 2000 and 31 September 2001:                     Mr Cooke, Mr Vilaras and Mr Forwood, Judges.
(a)  to designate as Presidents of Chamber:
     —     Ms Lindh,                                                   For cases in which the written procedure was completed and a
                                                                       hearing in the oral procedure was held or fixed before
     —     Mr Azizi,                                                   1 October 2000, the Chambers shall continue to sit with the
                                                                       same composition as before for the oral procedure, the
     —     Mr Mengozzi,                                                deliberation and the judgment.
     —     Mr Meij;
(b) to assign the Members of the Court of First Instance to            Criteria for assigning cases to the Chambers
     the Chambers as follows:
     to the First Chamber                                              At its plenary meeting on 4 July 2000, the Court of First
                                                                       Instance established the following criteria for the assignment
     Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Vilaras and M. Forwood,
                                                                       of cases to the Chambers for the period from 1 October 2000
     Judges;
                                                                       to 31 August 2001, pursuant to Article 12 of the Rules of
     to the First Chamber, Extended Composition                        Procedure:
     Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Potocki, Mr Pirrung, Mr             1.    (a)    Actions concerning the implementation of the rules
     Vilaras and Mr Forwood, Judges;                                                on State aid or the rules on trade protection
                                                                                measures shall be assigned, with effect from the
     to the Second Chamber                                                          lodging of the application and without prejudice to
                                                                                any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of
     Mr Meij, (President of Chamber), Mr Potocki and Mr Pir-
                                                                                the Rules of Procedures, to Chambers with an
     rung, Judges;
                                                                                extended composition of five Judges.
     to the Second Chamber, Extend Composition
                                                                             (b) All other cases shall be assigned, with effect from
     Mr Meij (President of Chamber), Mr Lenaerts, Mr Potocki,                       the lodging of the application and without prejudice
     Mr Jaeger and Mr Pirrung, Judges;                                              to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51
                                                                                of the Rules of Procedure, to Chambers of three
     to the Third Chamber                                                           Judges.
     Mr Azizi (President of Chamber), Mr Lenaerts et Mr Jaeger,
     Judges:                                                           2.    The cases referred to in paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) shall be
                                                                             allocated between the Chambers as follows:
     to the Third Chamber, Extended Composition
     Mr Azizi (President of Chamber), Mr Lenaerts, Ms Tiili,                 (a)    The cases referred to in paragraph 1(a) shall be
     Mr Moura Ramos and Mr Jaeger, Judges;                                          assigned in turn, according to the order in which
                                                                                they are registered at the Court Registry, to the First,
     to the Fourth Chamber                                                          Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Chambers, Extended
                                                                                Composition;
     Mr Mengozzi (President of Chamber), Ms Tiili et Mr Mou-
     ra Ramos, Judges;
                                                                             (b) Cases concerning intellectual property, as referred
     to the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition                                    to in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the
                                                                                Court of First Instance, shall be assigned, according
     Mr Mengozzi (President of Chamber), Mr Garcı́a-Valdeca-                        to the order in which they are registered at the Court
     sas, Ms Tiili, Ms Moura Ramos and Mr Cooke, Judges;                           Registry, to the Second and Fourth Chambers;
 ---pagebreak--- 9.9.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 259/15
      (c)  The other cases referred to in paragraph 1(b) shall              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
           be assigned to the First, Second, Third, Fourth and
           Fifth Chambers. Such assignment is to be effected
           on the basis of three separate rotas, reflecting the                                  of 21 June 2000
           order in which the cases are registered at the Court
           Registry:
                                                                        in Case T-537/93: Hervé Tromeur v Council of the
                                                                        European Union and Commission of the European Com-
           —     for the cases referred to in Article 236 of the
                                                                                munities (1)
                 EC Treaty and Article 152 of the EAEC Treaty,
           —     for the cases concerning the implementation            (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —
                 of the rules on competition applicable to              Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having
                 undertakings,                                          entered into an undertaking to convert — Production not
                                                                                resumed on expiry of the undertaking)
           —     for the other cases covered by paragraph 1(b).
                                                                                (2000/C 259/24)
For the purposes of the rota referred to in the first indent of
paragraph 2(c), the assignment of cases concerning intellectual
property to the Second and Fourth Chambers on the basis of                                 (Language of the case: French)
the rota referred to in paragraph 2(b) shall be compensated for
by the assignment of cases to the First, Third and Fifth
Chambers on a pro rata basis.                                           In Case T-537/93: Hervé Tromeur, residing in Fuzunec, France,
                                                                        represented by C. Larzul and F. Buffet, and subsequently by
                                                                        A. Delanoé, of the Rennes Bar, with an address for service in
For the purposes of the rotas referred to in paragraphs 2(a)            Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch, v
and 2(c), the First Chamber and the First Chamber, Extended             Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Colaert and
Composition, presided over by the President of the Court of             M. Núñez Müller) and Commission of the European Communi-
First Instance, shall not be included in those lists every third        ties (Agents: G. Berscheid and M. Núñez Müller) — application
thime the end of a rota is reached.                                     for compensation under Article 178 and the second paragraph
                                                                        of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC and the
                                                                        second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for damage suffered by
The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate from          the applicant as a result of his having been prevented
that order on the ground that cases related or with a view to           from marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC)
ensuring an even spread of the workload.                                No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the
                                                                        application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation
                                                                        (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector
                                                                        (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by Commission
Plenary session                                                         Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down
                                                                        detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred
                                                                        to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1984
                                                                        L 132, p. 11) — the Court of First Instance of the European
At ist plenary meeting on 4 July 2000, the Court of First               Communities (Single Judge: R.M. Moura Ramos); J. Palacio
Instance decided pursuant to the second subparagraph of                 González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
Article 32(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First           ment on 21 June 2000, in which it:
Instance that where, following the designation of an Advocate
General pusruant to Article 17 of the Rules of Procedure, there
is an even number of Judges in the Court of First Instance
                                                                        1.    Dismisses the application;
sitting in plenary session, the rota established in advance in
accordance with which the President of the Court is to
designate the Judge who will not take part in the judgment of
the case shall be in reverse order to that in which the Judges          2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
rank according to their seniority in office under Article 6 of
the Rules of Procedure, unless the Judge who would thus be
designated is the Judge-Rapporteur. In that event, it shall be
the Judge ranking immediately above him who shall be                    (1) OJ C 314 of 20.11.93.
designated.


title: Case C-431/10: Action brought on 1 September 2010 — European Commission v Ireland

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/15

         Action brought on 1 September 2010 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-431/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande, A.-A. Gilly, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that by failing to fully adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/85/EC (1) of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, or in any event by failing to notify measures for the full transposition of those provisions into national law, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 1 December 2007. The period within which article 15 of the directive had to be transposed expired on 1 December 2008.

      (1)  OJ L 326, p. 13


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 1995 in Case C-132/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 90/675/EEC - Veterinary checks - Failure to transpose)

text:
2 . 3 . 96           I EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 64/3
Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                       ( Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on              Almeida, C. Gulmann, L. Sevon and M. Wathelet, Judges;
14 December 1995 , in which it rules :                                 C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                       given a judgment on 14 December 1995 , in which it:
Article 4 (1 ) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December
1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of             1 . declares that, by failing to bring into force all the laws,
equal treatment for men and women in matters of social                       regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
security must be interpreted as meaning that national                        comply with Council Directive 90/675/EEC of
provisions under which employment regularly consisting of                    10 December 1990 laying down the principles
fewer than 15 hours a week and regularly attracting                          governing the organization of veterinary checks on
remuneration ofup to one-seventh of the monthly reference                    products entering the Community from third countries,
amount is excluded from compulsory insurance under the                       Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first
statutory sickness and old-age insurance schemes, and                        subparagraph of Article 32 (1 ) of that Directive;
national provisions under which employment which tends
by its nature to be regularly limited to fewer than 1 8 hours a
week or is so limited in advance by a contract ofemployment            2 . orders Ireland to pay the costs.
is excluded from the obligation to contribute to the
statutory unemployment insurance scheme, do not                        •(>) OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 .
constitute discrimination on grounds ofsex, even where the
relevant provisions affect considerably more women than
men, since the national legislature was reasonably entitled to
consider that the legislation in question was necessary jn
order to achieve a social policy aim unrelated to any
discrimination on grounds of sex.
(!) OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 14 December 1995
                                                                        in Case C-138/94 : Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. Ireland C )
                                                                        (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/496/EEC —
                                                                                Veterinary checks — Failure to transpose)
                                                                                ( 96/C 64/06 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                      of 14 December 1995
in Case C-l 32/94: Commission of the European
                   Communities v. Ireland (^                            In Case C-138/94 : Commission of the European
 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 90/675/EEC —                Communities ( Agents : Jose Luis Iglesias Buhigues and James
           Veterinary checks — Failure to transpose)                    Macdonald Flett ) v. Ireland ( Agent: Michael A. Buckley ) —
                                                                        application for a declaration that, by failing to bring into
                           ( 96/C 64/05                                 force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                        necessary to comply with Council Directive 91 /496/EEC of
                                                                         15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the
                (Language of the case: English)                         organization of veterinary checks on animals entering the
                                                                        Community from third countries and amending Directives
                                                                         89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC ( OJ No L 268 ,
 In Case C-l 32/94 : Commission of the European                          1991 , p. 56 ) and/or in failing to inform the Commission
 Communities ( Agents : Jose Luis Iglesias Buhigues and James           forthwith thereof, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
 Macdonald Flett ) v. Ireland (Agent: Michael A. Buckley ) —            under that Directive, in particular Article 30 thereof, and
 application for a declaration that, by failing to bring into           under the Treaty establishing the European Community —
 force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions              the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward
 necessary to comply with Council Directive 90/675/EEC of                ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
 10 December 1990 laying down the principles governing the              Almeida , C. Gulmann, L. Sevon and M. Wathelet, Judges;
 organization of veterinary checks on products entering the              C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
 Community from third countries ( OJ No L 373 , 1990, p. 1 )             given a judgment on 14 December 1995 , in which it:
 and/or by failing to inform the Commission forthwith
 thereof, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
 Directive, in particular Article 32 thereof, and under the              1 . declares that, by failing to bring into force all the laws,
 Treaty establishing the European Community — the Court                       regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
 ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward                              comply with Council Directive 91 /496/EEC of 15 July


title: Case T-212/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2008 — MyTravel v Commission (Non-contractual liability of the Community — Competition — Decision declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market — Annulment of the decision by a judgment of the Court of First Instance — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/15

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2008 — MyTravel v Commission
   (Case T-212/03) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability of the Community - Competition - Decision declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market - Annulment of the decision by a judgment of the Court of First Instance - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)
   (2008/C 272/26)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: MyTravel Group plc (Rochdale, Lancashire, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Pannick, QC, M. Nicholson and S. Cardell, Solicitors, A. Lewis, Barrister, and R. Gillis, QC)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially by R. Lyal, A. Whelan and P. Hellström, and subsequently by R. Lyal and F. Arbault, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma, Agents)
   Re:
   APPLICATION for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant by reason of the unlawfulness of the proceedings for determining whether the concentration between the applicant and First Choice plc was compatible with the common market.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders MyTravel Group plc to bear its own costs;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs;

               4.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 23.8.2003.


title: Case T-721/14: Action brought on 13 October 2014 — Belgium v Commission

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/42

         Action brought on 13 October 2014 — Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-721/14)
   (2014/C 431/66)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents, and P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Recommendation 2014/478/EU of 14 July 2014 on principles for the protection of consumers and players of online gambling services and for the prevention of minors from gambling online;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of conferral under Article 5 TEU by not referring to the substantive legal basis in the Treaties that confer on the Commission the competence to adopt the contested measure.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of conferral, given that the Treaties do not confer on the Commission the competence to adopt an instrument with harmonising effect in the games of chance sector.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of cooperation in good faith under Article 4(3) TEU and the principle of institutional balance under Article 13(2) TEU due to the Commission’s disregard of the Conclusions of the Council of 10 December 2010‘Framework for gambling and betting in the EU member states’ (Document 16884/10).

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of cooperation in good faith under Article 4(3) TEU in respect of the Member States.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 13(2) TEU and 288 and 288 TFEU, given that the contested instrument constitutes de facto a hidden directive. The applicant also claims an infringement of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union because the Commission did not implement in accordance with law a limitation on the freedom of expression and information as laid down in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.


title: Case T-496/04: Action brought on 23 December 2004 by NORTRAIL Transport GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/29

         Action brought on 23 December 2004 by NORTRAIL Transport GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-496/04)
   (2005/C 93/58)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 December 2004 by NORTRAIL Transport GmbH of Kiel (Germany), represented by J Krause, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission dated 1 October 2004 (REM 15/02) on the application by the company NORTRAIL Transport GmbH for repayment of import duties pursuant to Article 239 of the Customs Code Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Since July 1995, the applicant has continuously imported consignments of various fishery products from Norway. In the context of tariff quotas opened pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 3061/95 (1), the applicant applied for the duty-free release of the goods for free circulation with effect from 1 September 1995. The competent customs office determined that the customs exemption which the applicant had applied for could not be granted in respect of a certain number of consignments, and that the standard tariff rate applied. On that basis, the relevant customs office demanded that the applicant pay import duties for the release for free circulation of the goods concerned. The applicant paid part of the import duties.
   The applicant argues that there are special circumstances within the meaning of Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/1992 (2), as a result of which it is entitled to repayment and remission of import duties.
   The applicant bases this assertion, among other, on the argument that a Community measure had been adopted with retrospective effect. German customs offices were informed of the opening of tariff quotas with effect from 1 September 1995 by a notice from the German Federal Ministry of Finance on 31 August 1995. On 4 October 1995, however, German customs offices were notified that those quotas had in fact been opened retrospectively with effect from 1 July 1995. In the period from 1 September 1995 when the applicant applied for the duty-free release for free circulation of the goods concerned, some of those quotas had already been used up, which to some extent was the case even before 1 September 1995, given the retrospective opening of quotas with effect from 1 July 1995.
   The applicant further submits that the measure adopted is inadequate and misleading, and that the discrepancy between the date the Community measure was published and the opening date of the tariff quotas which the measure regulates and which take effect retrospectively, is misleading. This makes it possible for national customs authorities to interpret the opening date of the tariff quotas differently, which infringes the principle of non-discrimination.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 3061/95 of 22 December 1995 amending Regulation (EC) No 992/95 opening and providing for the administration of Community tariff quotas for certain agricultural and fishery products originating in Norway (OJ 1995 L 327, p. 1).

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


title: Case C-385/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Accession of new Member States — Marketing authorisations for medicinal products that are generics of the reference product Plavix — Conditional decisions authorising the marketing of pharmaceutical products — Infringement of the acquis)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-385/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Accession of new Member States - Marketing authorisations for medicinal products that are generics of the reference product Plavix - Conditional decisions authorising the marketing of pharmaceutical products - Infringement of the acquis)
   2011/C 145/02
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Šimerdová and K. Herrmann, agents, acting as Agents

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz and B. Majczyna, agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and R. Mackevičienė, agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), read in conjunction with Article 13(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (OJ 1993 L 214, p. 1) and with Articles 89 and 90 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1) — Marketing authorisations for medicinal products that are generics of the reference product Plavix, in breach of the 10-year period of protection enjoyed by the latter — Conditional decisions authorising the marketing of pharmaceutical products, issued before the date of Poland’s accession to the European Union but not becoming effective until after that date — Decisions inconsistent with the provisions of Directive 2001/83/EC

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that,

                           —

                           by retaining in force the decisions of the Minister for Health concerning marketing authorisations for medicinal products that are generics of the reference product Plavix, and

                           —

                           by placing and keeping on the market, after 1 May 2004, medicinal products whose marketing authorisation was not issued in accordance with Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use,

                     the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations, as regards the first indent above, under Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/83, in conjunction with Article 13(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products and with Articles 89 and 90 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency and, as regards the second indent above, under Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/83.

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Case C-369/05: Order of the President of the Court of 18 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/52

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-369/05) (1)

   (2006/C 326/108)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 March 2002 in Joined Cases C-250/01 P and C-251/01 P: Mario Costacurta v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Application of Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — Re-posting of the applicant to a non-Member State — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility — Appeal manifestly unfounded and inadmissible — Costs)

text:
C 131/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.6.2002
3.    The Parliament’s application for the Court to order                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespa-
      Mr Panichelli to bear his own costs at first instance in Case        tentgericht by order of that Court of 22 January 2002
      T-130/98 is rejected.                                                in the administrative appeal brought by Heidelberger
                                                                                Bauchemie GmbH
(1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                                                                                (Case C-49/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 131/04)
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     European Communities by order of the Bundespatentgericht
                                                                           (Federal Patents Court) (Germany) of 22 January 2002, received
                                                                           at the Court Registry on 20 February 2002, for a preliminary
                        (Fourth Chamber)                                   ruling in the administrative appeal brought by Heidelberger
                                                                           Bauchemie GmbH on the following questions:
                         of 14 March 2002
                                                                           For the purposes of registration as a trade mark, do colours or
in Joined Cases C-250/01 P and C-251/01 P: Mario Costac-                   combinations of colours claimed in the abstract, without
    urta v Commission of the European Communities (1)                      delineation and in hues which are indicated by a colour sample
                                                                           (colour specimen), named in words and identified under a
                                                                           recognised colour classification system fulfil the requirements
(Appeals — Application of Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff                for ability to constitute a trade mark laid down in Article 2 of
Regulations — Re-posting of the applicant to a non-Member                  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988
State — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility — Appeal                    to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
      manifestly unfounded and inadmissible — Costs)                       marks?
                          (2002/C 131/03)                                  In particular, for the purposes of Article 2 of the directive, is
                                                                           such an ‘(abstract) colour mark’
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           a)    a sign,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     b)    sufficiently distinctive to be capable of indicating origin,
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           c)    capable of being represented graphically?
In Joined Cases C-250/01 P and C-251/01 P: Mario Costacurta,               (1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1.
a former official of the Commission of the European Com-
munities, residing at Luxembourg, represented by M. Petit,
lawyer — two appeals against the orders of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities, Second Chamber, of
7 June 2001 in Case T-328/00 Costacurta v Commission, not
published in the European Court Reports, seeking to have
those orders set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall,                Eisenstadt by order of that Court of 17 January 2002 in
assisted by B. Wägenbaur) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),                    the private prosecutions brought by Montres Rolex S.A.
composed of S. von Bahr, President of Chamber,
                                                                                and Others
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola, Judges; D. Ruiz-
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made
an order on 14 March 2002, the operative part of which is as                                         (Case C-60/02)
follows:
                                                                                (2002/C 131/05)
1.    The appeals are dismissed.
2.    Mr Costacurta shall bear the costs.                                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Landesgericht Eisen-
                                                                           stadt (Regional Court, Eisenstadt) of 17 January 2002, received
(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
                                                                           at the Court Registry on 25 February 2002, for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the private prosecutions brought by Montres Rolex
                                                                           S.A. and Others, on the following question: