title: Case T-100/05: Action brought on 21 February 2005 by the Compagnie d'entreprises C.F.E. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/41

         Action brought on 21 February 2005 by the Compagnie d'entreprises C.F.E. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-100/05)
   (2005/C 106/82)
   Language of the Case: French
   An action was brought on 21 February 2005 against the Commission of the European Communities by the Compagnie d'entreprises C.F.E., whose registered office is in Brussels, represented by Bernard Louveaux and Joël van Ypersele, avocats.
   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region (2004/813/EC) published in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 29 December 2004, in its entirety or at least to the extent to which it classified as a site of Community importance the applicant's property situate at Avenue de la Foresterie, Watermael-Boitsfort (Belgium) and registered in the land register under section F No 66/Y/2 and 66/S/2;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas and main arguments
   The applicant in the present case is the owner of a major share of building land situate in the region of Brussels-Capital. That land has been classified by the contested decision as a site of Community importance.
   In support of its claims the applicant pleads:

               —

               Infringement of Article 4(1) and (2) of Annex III to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, inasmuch as the Commission took the decision at issue even though no draft list of sites of Community importance had been duly proposed by Belgium; the author of the proposal in that regard, the Brussels Institute for the management of the environment is manifestly not competent to formulate such proposal. Consequently, the contested decision is vitiated by lack of competence.

               —

               Infringement of Articles 4(2) and (3), 20 and 21 of Directive 92/43 aforesaid, Articles 5(2) and 7(1) of Council Decision 999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, Article 8 of the rules of procedure of the ‘habitats’ committee, Article 9 of the standard rules of procedure adopted in Decision 2001/C 38/03 under Article 7(1) aforesaid, as well as the general principles of sound administration and audi alteram partem. In that regard the applicant asserts that the opinion of the habitats committee was not sought in accordance with the ordinary procedure applicable in that regard but under the procedure for a written procedure, even though there was no apparent need for recourse to that procedure, recourse thereto did not form the subject-matter of a reasoned opinion and the habitats committee was not enabled to express its views on all the technical aspects of the file.

               —

               The Commission adopted its decision on the basis of a proposal for a list of sites founded on factual information which was inaccurate and/or irrelevant in light of the criteria laid down in Annex III to Directive 92/43/EEC.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment of that Court of 9 December 1998, in the case of Modelo Continente, SGPS, SA and Fazenda Pública (Case C-19/99)

text:
C 86/8                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   27.3.1999
at the Court Registry on 20 January 1999, for a                      with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of
preliminary ruling in the case of Hans Sommer GmbH &                 Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
Co v. Hauptzollamt Bremen on the following questions:                Centre, Kirchberg.
1. Are expenses' or handling costs' relating to honey
     imported from the USSR from 1989 to 1991 charged                The Commission claims that the Court sholud:
     by the German import company to the purchaser
     pursuant to separate contractual arrangements part of
     the transaction value under Article 3(1) of Council             Ð order the defendant to refund to the Commission all
     Regulation (EEC) No 1224/80 of 28 May 1988 on the                   the financing which it has received from the
     valuation of goods for customs purposes (OJ L 134,                  Community, namely to pay the entire amount of the
     31.8.1980, p. 1), as ameded by Regulation (EEC)                     debt of ECU (now EUR) 350 641,99 together with
     No 3193/80 (OJ L 333, 11.12.1980, p. 1), if after                   interest calculated in accordance with the provisions of
     importation the import company must take samples                    the agreement amounting, up until 31 December 1998,
     for establishing the quality of the honey in accordance             to ECU (now EUR) 49 129,18, that is to say a total
     with the German Honey Regulation and provide the                    amount of ECU (now EUR) 399 771,17, and
     results of the chemical analyses?                                   additionally interest at 2 % above the rate of the
                                                                         European Monetary Cooperation Fund in respect of
                                                                         the period from 1 January 1999 until the defendant
2. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:                         has fully discharged its debt;
     Is Commission Decision K(95) 2325 of 28 September
     1995 null and void?                                             Ð order the defendant to pay the Commission's general
                                                                         legal costs including the fees of its authorised lawyers.
3. If question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     Must the authorities refrain from post-clearance
     recovery of duties pursuant to Article 5(2) of Council
     Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 if, upon an external                The objects of the defendant company are the design,
     check concerning imports in an earlier period and               construction, installation, operation and supervision of
     following a check review, they raised no objection to           apparatus for the exploitation of wind energy in order to
     the fact that a global sum for expenses was not                 produce and sell electric current.
     included in the customs value in the case of similar
     purchase transactions and it is not clear that the trader
     could have been in doubt as to whether the result of            The action, which has been brought pursuant to an
     the check was right?                                            arbitration clause, seeks the refund of financial assistance
                                                                     granted by the Commission to the defendant for the
4. If question 3 is answered in the negative:                        realisation and demonstration of a pilot wind-energy
                                                                     programme under which a wind farm was to be installed
                                                                     on the south-east cost of Crete in the area of Sitia. The
     Do the circumstances set out in question 3 amount               Commission decided to terminate the contract entered into
     to special circumstances' within the meaning of                by the parties under English law, on the ground that the
     Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79               defendant had infringed its obligations.
     justifying the remission of import duties?
Action brought on 26 January 1999 by the Commission of               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribu-
the European Communities against Aiolika Parka Sitias                nal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment of that
                             A.E.                                    Court of 9 December 1998, in the case of Modelo Conti-
                        (Case C-18/99)                                          nente, SGPS, SA and Fazenda PuÂblica
                        (1999/C 86/15)                                                      (Case C-19/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 86/16)
An action against Aiolika Parka Sitias A.E. was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 26 January 1999 by the Commission of the European                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,                      European Communities by an judgment of the Second
Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a             Chamber of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service under the           (Supreme Administrative Court) of 9 December 1998,
scheme for national experts, assisted by Maria Bra, of the           which was received at the Court Registry on 28 January
Brussels Bar, and Kiriaki Kapoutzidou, of the Athens Bar,            1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Modelo Con-
 ---pagebreak--- 27.3.1999                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 86/9
tinente, SGPS, SA and Fazenda PuÂblica, on the following                 Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
questions:                                                               Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
                                                                         its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
1. May Articles 10 and 12 of Council Directive
     69/335/EEC (1) be relied on by a private individual in              The applicant claims that the Court should:
     dealings with the State, even if the latter has not
     transposed that directive into national law?
                                                                         1. Declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                              period the laws, regulations and administrative
2. Must the operations referred to in Article 4(3) of                         provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
     Directive 69/335/EEC be regarded as covered by the                       90/428/EEC of 26 June 1990 on trade in equidae
     prohibition laid down in Article 10 of the same                          intended for competitions and laying down the
     Community measure, in such a way as to preclude the                      conditions for participation therein (1), the Republic of
     collection, under the directive, not only of the tax on                  Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
     the raising of capital but also of any other levy, of                    Treaty and that directive.
     whatever kind, in particular one that is a charge rather
     than a tax?
                                                                         2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.
3. Must Articles 10 and 12(1)(e) of the same directive be
     interpreted as meaning that the fees payable to the                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     notary for recordal in a (legally binding) public
     instrument of resolutions increasing capital or
     amending statutes may not vary according to the
                                                                         On the basis of the mandatory provisions (3) of
     amount of the increase and the amount of the capital,
     respectively?                                                       Article 189 and of Article 5(1) of the EC Treaty, Member
                                                                         States are obliged to transpose the provisions of directives
                                                                         addressed to them into national law within the period
                                                                         prescribed.
4. May those fees Ð see Article 5 of the Schedule of
     Notarial Fees Ð be regarded as depending on the cost
     of the service provided?
                                                                         That period expired for Austria on 1 January 1995, and
                                                                         not all the Austrian Länder have adopted the necessary
                                                                         provisions.
5. What must such cost be construed as comprising?
     Does it include the salary of notaries and of officials in
     their offices, the facilities of such offices and the like?         (1) OJ L 224, 1.8.1990, p. 60.
6. Is it permitted and, consequently legal, having regard
     to Articles 10 and 12(1) of the said directive, for any
     fee to be charged in excess of that cost? And if so, to
     what extent?
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circon-
(1) Council Directive 69/335/EEC concerning indirect taxes on the        dariale di Pinerolo by order of that Court of 15 January
    raising of capital (OJ English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412).   1999 in the case of Cristoforo Bertinetto against Biraghi
                                                                                SpA
                                                                                (Case C-22/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 86/18)
Action brought on 29 January 1999 by the Commission of                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the European Communities against the Republic of                         European Communities by order of the Pretura Circonda-
                               Austria                                   riale (District Magistrate's Court) (Pinerolo) of 15 January
                          (Case C-20/99)                                 1999, received at the Court Registry on 1 February 1999,
                                                                         for a preliminary ruling in the case of Cristoforo
                          (1999/C 86/17)                                 Bertinetto against Biraghi SpA on the following question:
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                    Does Article 3 of Council Regulation No 804/68 (1)
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                  preclude the Italian State from regulating by statute the
on 29 January 1999 by the Commission of the European                     terms of intertrade agreements designed to fix milk prices
Communities, represented by Michael Niejahr, of its Legal                in advance in accordance with the procedures and legal


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 23 November 1995 in Case C-394/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz): Gabriel Alonso-Pérez v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Social security for workers moving within the Community - Family benefits - Member State limiting the retroactive effect of an application for family benefits)

text:
3 . 2 . 96               EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 31 /3
2 . In order to be regarded as 'special' within the meaning of           1 . Article 12 (h) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84
     Article 4 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 , it is                    of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the
     sufficient — without there being any need to take other                 application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of
     factors into consideration — that the social security                   Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk
     scheme in question is different from the general social                 products sector must be interpreted as meaning that
     security scheme applicable to employed persons in the                   milk deliveries made by an agricultural holding to the
      Member State concerned and that all, or certain                        pupils and boarders of a school against payment of the
      categories of, civil servants are directly subject to it, or           price of the milk indirectly by inclusion in the boarding
      that it refers to a social security scheme for civil servants          fees must be described as direct sale within the meaning
     already in force in that Member State.                                  of that provision where the agricultural holding, the
                                                                             school and the boarding facilities are run by the same
3 . Articles 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted                  institution .
     as precluding refusal to take into account, for the
     acquisition of the right to a pension, periods of                   2 . Consideration of Article 4 (1 ) of Commission
      employment completed by a person subject to a special                  Regulation (EEC) No 1371 /84 of 16 May 1984 laying
      scheme for civil servants or persons treated as such, such             down detailed rules for the application of the additional
      as an IKA staff doctor, in public hospitals in another                 levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No
      Member State, where the relevant national legislation                  804/68 has disclosed no factor ofsuch a kind as to affect
      allows such periods to be taken into account if they have              its validity in so far as it does not allow for account to be
      been completed in comparable establishments within                     taken of changes in the financial needs of the producer
      that State.                                                            which are linked to the holding after expiry of the
                                                                             time-limit for registration for the purpose of obtaining a
(') OJ No C 18 , 21 . 1 . 1994 .                                             reference quantity for direct sales.
                                                                         3 . Article 4(1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 1371 /84, cited
                                                                             above, must be interpreted as meaning that a producer
                                                                             who has not complied with the time-limit laid down by
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       that provision may be allocated a reference quantity in
                          ( Second Chamber )                                 application of the principle of restoration to the status
                       of 23 November 1995
                                                                             quo ante under the rules of national law, provided,
                                                                             however, that there is no discrimination in applying the
in Case C-285/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                   national rule in comparison with the way in which cases
the Finanzgericht Miinchen ): Dominikanerinnen-Kloster                       of non-compliance with national time-limits are treated
         AltenHohenau v. Hauptzollamt Rosenheim ( l )                        and that it is not applied in a way that would undermine
(Additional levy on milk — Reference quantity for direct                     the purposes of the milk quota scheme.
                                   sales)
                                                                         (') OJ No C 175 , 26 . 6 . 1993 .
                              ( 96/C 31 /05 )
                  (Language of the case: German)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     published in the Reports of Cases before the Court)                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
In Case C-285/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                                of 23 November 1995
of the EEC Treaty from the Finanzgericht Miinchen
 ( Finance Court, Munich ) for a preliminary ruling in the               in Case C-394/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
 proceedings pending before that court between                           the Landessozialgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz): Gabriel
 Dominikanerinnen-Kloster Altenhohenau v. Hauptzollamt                            Alonso-Perez v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit ( 1 )
 Rosenheim — on the interpretation of Article 12 ( h ) of                 (Social security for workers moving within the Community
 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984                    — Family benefits — Member State limiting the retroactive
 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred                  effect of an application for family benefits)
 to in Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk
 and milk products sector ( OJ 1984 , No L 90, p. 13 ), and on                                       ( 96/C 31 /06 )
 the interpretation and validity, in particular in the light of
 the general principles of Community law, of Article 4 ( 1 ) of                          (Language of the case: German)
  Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1371 /84 of 16 May
  1984 laying down detailed rules for the application of the              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
  additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC )            published in the Reports of Cases before the Court)
 No 804/68 ( OJ 1 984, No L 1 32 , p. 1 1 ) — the Court ( Second
  Chamber ), composed of G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ), President              In Case C-394/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
  of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and F. A. Schockweiler,                   of the EEC Treaty from the Landessozialgericht ( Higher
 Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,                    Social Court) Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz ( Germany), for a
  Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 23 November 1995 ,                 preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
  in which it ruled :                                                     court between Gabriel Alonso-Perez and Bundesanstalt fur
 ---pagebreak--- No C 31 /4             EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3 . 2 . 96
Arbeit ( Federal Labour Office ) — on the interpretation of          other party to the proceedings being the Commission of the
Article 1 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3427/89 of          European Communities ( Agents : Eugenio de March and
30 October 1989 amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71               Alberto Dal Ferro ) — the Court ( Third Chamber ),
on the application of social security schemes to employed            composed of J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), President of the
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their            Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and C. Gulmann,
families moving within the Community and Regulation                  Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General ;
( EEC ) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for                      R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 November
implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( OJ 1989 No              1995 , in which it:
L 331 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of
C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch ,                1 . dismisses the appeal;
G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler and J. L. Murray
( Rapporteur ), Judges; P. Leger, Advocate General ; H. A.           2 . orders the appellant to pay the costs.
Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar , has given a
judgment on 23 November 1995 , in which it rules :
                                                                     (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
the application of social security schemes to employed
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
families moving within the Community, as amended by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 , and                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
as subsequently amending Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of                                  of 30 November 1995
30 October 1989 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
on the application of social security schemes to employed            in Case C-55/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their            the Consiglio Nazionale Forense ): Reinhard Gebhard v.
families moving within the Community and Regulation                  Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di
(EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for                                                     Milano ( 1 )
implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 , does not                  (Directive 77/249/EEC — Freedom to provide services —
prevent a national provision limiting the retroactive effect of      Lawyers — Possibility of opening chambers — Articles 52
applications for family benefits to a period of six months                             and 59 of the EC Treaty)
from being applied to an application by a Spanish national                                      ( 96/C 31 /08 )
for payment as from IS January 1986 of family benefits in
respect of the members of his family resident in Spain.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(>) OJ No C 263 , 29 . 9 . 1993 .
                                                                     (Provisional translation• the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Courts Report)
                                                                     In Case C-55/94 : reference to the Court under Article 1 77 of
                                                                     the EC Treaty from the Consiglio Nazionale Forense
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 ( National Council of the Bar ), Italy, for a preliminary ruling
                        (Third Chamber )                             in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                     Reinhard Gebhard and Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati
                     of 23 November 1995                             e Procuratori di Milano — on the interpretation of Council
in Case C-476/93 P: Nutral SpA v. Commission of the                  Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the
                   European Communities (')                          effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services
      (Appeal — Action for annulment of measures —                   ( OJ 1977, No L 78 , p. 17 ) — the Court, composed of G. C.
                          Admissibility)                             Rodriguez Iglesias , President, C. N. Kakouris , D. A. O.
                                                                     Edward ( Rapporteur ) and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
                           ( 96/C 31 /07                             Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
                                                                     Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann , J. L.
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                     Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevòn, Judges;
                                                                     P. Leger, Advocate General ; H. A. Rühl , Principal
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
          published in the European Courts Report)                   30 November 1995 , in which it rules :
In Case C-476/93 P : Nutral SpA, established at                       1 . The temporary nature of the provision of services,
Casalbuttano, Cremona ( Italy ), represented by Emilio                    envisaged in the third paragraph of Article 60 of the EC
Cappelli and Paolo de Caterini, of the Rome Bar, and Mario                Treaty, is to be determined in the light of its duration,
de Bellis , of the Mantua Bar, with an address for service in             regularity, periodicity and continuity.
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Turk, 1 3b Avenue
 Guillaume — appeal against the order of the Court of First           2 . The provider of services, within the meaning of the
Instance of the European Communities of 21 October 1993                   Treaty, may equip himselfin the host Member State with
in Cases T-492/93 and T-492/93 R Nutral v. Commission                     the infrastructure necessary for the purposes of
 [ 1993 ] ECR 11-1023 , seeking to have that order set aside, the         performing the services in question.


title: Case F-33/08: Action brought on 4 March 2008 — V v Commission

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/26

         Action brought on 4 March 2008 — V v Commission
   (Case F-33/08)
   (2008/C 158/47)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: V (represented by: C. Ronzi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the Commission's decision of 15 May 2007 informing the applicant that she did not satisfy the requirements of physical fitness for the performance of duties with the European Commission, removal from her personal file of certain expert reports, and application for compensation for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage suffered.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 15 May 2007 informing the applicant that she did not satisfy the requirements of physical fitness for the performance of duties with the European Commission;

               —

               So far as necessary, annul the decision of 12 July 2007 rejecting the applicant's complaint of 1 June 2007;

               —

               Order removal from the applicant's personal file of the expert reports issued on 15 September 2006, 21 September 2006 and 28 March 2007, and, consequently, rule that reference should be made to the initial medical opinion of 26 June 2006 in which the applicant was declared fit for work;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant, provisionally and fairly estimated at EUR 170 900 (with the addition of default interest to be calculated at the rates set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing transactions, plus two points, from 1 August 2006);

               —

               Order extension on behalf of the applicant of the reserve list which includes her name, as an interim measure, if the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal is to be handed down after February 2009 (when the validity of the reserve list expires);

               —

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


title: Case T-654/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku v Parliament

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/67

         Action brought on 13 November 2015 — České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku v Parliament
   (Case T-654/15)
   (2016/C 048/75)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku o.p.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision A(2015)8681 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      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 a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 23 January 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-18/98)

text:
C 94/10              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28.3.98
ductschap voor Akkerbouwproducten and 3. Aruba on the                9. Is Council Decision 97/803/EC valid, having regard
following questions:                                                     to the expectations aroused by the information
                                                                         brochure (DE 76) distributed by the Commission in
                                                                         October 1993, given that, at page 16, the brochure
 1. Is the mid-term amendment of the OCT Decision on                     states that the period of validity of the Sixth OCT
     1 December 1997 by Council Decision 97/803/EC of                    Decision is now 10 (previously five) years?
     24 November 1997 (OJ L 329, 29.11.1997, p. 50)
     proportionate, more specifically the insertion of
     Article 108b(1) and deletion of milling' as a relevant        10. Is Article 108b, which was inserted on 1 December
     method of processing for the purposes of origin?                    1997, so unworkable that it must be deemed to be
                                                                         invalid?
 2. Is it acceptable for the restrictive consequences of
     that Council decision Ð more specifically the                  11. Does the national court have jurisdiction, in
     insertion of Article 108b(1) and deletion of milling'              circumstances such as those described in Joined Cases
     as a relevant method of processing for the purposes                 C-143/88 and C-92/89 Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmar-
     of origin Ð to be (far) more serious than would have                schen and Others and subsequent cases, to adopt an
     been the case had recourse had been to safeguard                    interim measure in advance, in the event of an
     measures pursuant to Article 109 of the OCT                         imminent breach of Community law by a non-
     Decision?                                                           Community enforcement body designated by
                                                                         Community law, in order to prevent that breach?
 3. Is it compatible with the EC Treaty, in particular
     Part IV thereof, for a Council decision of the kind            12. On the assumption that the answer to Question 11 is
     referred to in the second paragraph of Article 136 of               in the affirmative and that assessment of the
     the Treaty (in the present case, Decision 97/803/EC)                circumstances referred to in Question 11 is a matter
     to include quantitative restrictions on imports or                  for the Court of Justice, rather than the national
     measures having equivalent effect?                                  court, are the circumstances described in this
                                                                         judgment at points 3.9 to 3.11 inclusive such as to
                                                                         justify a measure of the kind referred to in
 4. Is the answer to that question different:                            Question 11?
     (a) if those restrictions or measures are in the form
         of tariff quotas or limitations to the provisions
         relating to origin or a combination of the two,
         or
                                                                    Action brought on 23 January 1998 by the Commission of
     (b) if the provisions in question comprise safeguard
                                                                    the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
         measures or not?
                                                                                (Case C-18/98)
 5. Does it follow from the EC Treaty, in particular                                       (98/C 94/19)
     Part IV thereof, that for the purposes of the second
     paragraph of Article 136, the experience acquired Ð
     in the form of measures favourable to the OCT Ð                An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
     may not subsequently be reviewed or annulled to the            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
     detriment of the OCT?                                          on 23 January 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities, represented by Christian Tufvesson and Eric
                                                                    Gippini Fournier, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,
 6. If that is indeed the case, are the Council decisions at        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
     issue therefore void and can individuals then rely on          Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, 254, Wagner Centre.
     that in proceedings before the national court?
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
 7. To what extent must the OCT Decision (Council
     Decision 91/482/EEC (OJ L 263, 19.9.1991, p. 1);
     corrigendum (OJ L 15, 23.1.1993, p. 33)) be deemed             Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force,
     to apply without amendment during the 10-year                      or     communicate,    the   laws,     regulations   or
     period referred to in Article 240(1) thereof, given that           administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     the Council did not amend that Decision before the                 Council Directive 93/22/EEC of 10 May 1993 on
     expiry of the first (period of) five years referred to in          investment services in the securities field (1), the
     Article 240(3) thereof?                                            Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                        under the EC Treaty, and
 8. Is the Council's amending Decision (97/803/EC)
     contrary to Article 133(1) of the EC Treaty?                   Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 28.3.98                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 94/11
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                                                                        Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that body of
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                     21 January 1998 in the case of Karl-Heinz Meinert against
                                                                                Bezirkshauptmannschaft Salzburg-Umgebung
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                                          (Case C-20/98)
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives
addressed to them into their domestic law before the                                            (98/C 94/21)
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so. That period
expired on 1 July 1995 without Spain having brought into
force the necessary provisions.
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( ) OJ L 141, 11.6.1993, p. 27.
 1                                                                      European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Ver-
                                                                        waltungssenat     (Independent     Administrative     Board)
                                                                        Salzburg of 21 January 1998, received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 26 January 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                        the case of Karl-Heinz Meinert against Bezirkshauptmann-
                                                                        schaft (District Administrative Authority) Salzburg-Umge-
                                                                        bung on the following question:
Action brought on 23 January 1998 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                         (Case C-19/98)
                                                                        Are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty (provisions on the
                          (98/C 94/20)                                  freedom of movement of goods) and the other provisions
                                                                        of applicable Community law to be interpreted as
                                                                        preventing a Member State from restricting the transport
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought                      of animals for slaughter in that animals may be
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 transported for slaughter only as far as the nearest suitable
on 23 January 1998 by the Commission of the European                    abattoir in that State, and may be transported for
Communities, represented by Christina Tufvesson and Eric                slaughter in any event only if the provisions of law
Gippini Fournier, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,               regarding motor vehicles and traffic regulation are
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of              observed and a total journey time of six hours and a
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, 254, Wagner Centre.                            distance of 130 kilometres are not exceeded, whereby, in
                                                                        calculating the distance, account is taken of only half of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             the kilometres actually travelled on a motorway?
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force,
     or    communicate,         the    laws,    regulations    or
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December
     1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
     States relating to insurance against civil liability in            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep,
     respect of the use of motor vehicles (1), the Kingdom              Ghent, by judgment of 15 January 1998, in the case of the
     of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under                Openbaar Ministerie v. Jean Claude Becu, Annie Verweire,
     Article 1(4)(2) thereof and the EC Treaty,                                        NV Smeg and NV Adia Interim
                                                                                (Case C-22/98)
Ð declare that, by not answering the letters of
     22 February and 10 October 1994 or the letter of                                           (98/C 94/22)
     formal notice of 14 February 1996, the Kingdom of
     Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
     Treaty, and
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 European Communities by judgment of 15 January 1998
                                                                        of the Hof van Beroep (Court of Appeal), Ghent, which
                                                                        was received at the Court Registry on 28 January 1998,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     for a preliminary ruling in the case of the Openbaar
                                                                        Ministerie (Public Prosecutor's Department) v. Jean
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to                    Claude Becu, Annie Verweire, NV Smeg and NV Adia
those relied on in Case C-18/98 (2); the time limit for                 Interim, on the following questions:
transposition expired on 31 December 1987.
(1) OJ L 8, 11.1.1984, p. 17.                                           1. As Community law now stands, can those subject to
(2) See page 10 of this Official Journal.                                   it, be they natural or legal persons, acquire rights
                                                                            under Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty, in conjunction
                                                                            with Articles 7, 85 and 86 thereof, which Member


title: Case T-491/08 P: Appeal brought on 17 November 2008 by Philippe Bui Van against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 11 September 2008 in Case F-51/07 Bui Van v Commission

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/39

         Appeal brought on 17 November 2008 by Philippe Bui Van against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 11 September 2008 in Case F-51/07 Bui Van v Commission
   (Case T-491/08 P)
   (2009/C 32/76)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Philippe Bui Van (Hettange-Grande, France) (represented by P. Nelissen Grade, lawyer)

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

               —

               Declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2008 in Case F-51/07;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 March 2007 not to accept the appellant's complaint;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Director General of the JRC of 4 October 2006, in so far as it reclassifies the appellant in Grade AST 3, Step 2, whereas he was initially classified in Grade AST 4, Step 2;

               —

               Confirm the decision of 28 June 2006 which appoints the appellant in Grade AST 4, Step 2;

               —

               State to the Appointing Authority the consequences of the annulment of the contested decisions and, in particular, classification in Grade AST 4, Step 2, and the retroactive effect of appointment in Grade AST 4, Step 2, from the date the post was first taken up;

               —

               Order the respondent to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present appeal, the appellant seeks to have set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 11 September 2008 in Case F-51/07 Bui Van v Commission, by which the CST ordered the respondent to pay the appellant the sum of EUR 1 500 by way of damages and dismissed, as to the remainder, the action for annulment of the decision reclassifying the appellant in Grade AST 3, whereas he had initially been classified in Grade AST 4.
   In support of his appeal, the appellant puts forward three pleas in law.
   First, the judgment under appeal ought to be set aside in so far as it considers, while acknowledging that the Commission infringed the appellant's rights of defence, that the fact that the appellant was not heard did not affect the validity of the Commission's contested decision.
   Second, in connection with the appellant's plea at first instance alleging that there had been a manifest error of assessment and breach of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations, the CST was wrong to uphold the administrative decision of 4 October 2006, downgrading the appellant from Grade AST 4 to Grade AST 3, by holding, wrongly, that the appellant did not have reason to have legitimate expectations in the act appointing him in Grade AST 4, on the ground that the appellant should have known, because of a footnote in the competition notice, that his appointment in Grade AST 4 was unlawful and that the new Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities — which, according to the competition notice, were the ones to apply — could be pleaded against him. The appellant submits that that footnote could not alter the provisions of the Staff Regulations in force at the time of the competition notice.
   Third, the CST was wrong to dismiss the plea that there was an infringement of the principle of equal treatment even though the Appointing Authority, while it downgraded the appellant to Grade AST 3, responded positively to the complaints brought by three other officials who were essentially in the same situation as the appellant.


title: Case T-324/10: Action brought on 11 August 2010 — Van Parys v Commission

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/26

         Action brought on 11 August 2010 — Van Parys v Commission
   (Case T-324/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/41
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Léon Van Parys NV (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Vlaemminck and A. Hubert, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the European Commission decision of 6 May 2010 in file REC 07/07, which found that it was justified in a specific case to proceed with post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties and to proceed with remission of those duties in respect of one debtor but not in the case of another debtor;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   It is alleged that, over the period from 22 June 1998 to 8 November 1999, the applicant and its customs agent submitted false Spanish AGRIM certificates to the customs authorities in Antwerp for the importation of bananas from Ecuador. As a result of this, it is alleged that a claim was improperly made for the application of the preferential tariff.
   All of the allegedly false Spanish certificates which gave rise to the post-clearance recovery claim were obtained by the applicant via its Portuguese intermediary, with whom, in his capacity as fiscal representative, the applicant, through its Italian subsidiary, had operated for many years for the purchase of Spanish and Portuguese licences.
   The Belgian Customs and Excise Duty Administration submitted an application to the European Commission for non-post-clearance recovery and/or remission in respect of the customs duties recovered post-clearance. With regard to the imports in 1999, the European Commission issued a negative decision. It is against that decision that the applicant has brought the present action for annulment.
   The applicant invokes six grounds in support of the annulment of the abovementioned decision.
   First, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of Article 239 of the Community Customs Code, of the provisions of Regulations (EEC) No 1442/93 and (EC) No 2362/98, and invokes the recognised commercial usages as described by the World Trade Organisation. It contends that the Commission breached those provisions, which permitted the purchase of the use of import licences by means of the commercial method employed by the applicant, and as a result wrongly found the applicant guilty of negligence.
   Second, the applicant alleges a breach of Article 239 of the Community Customs Code and infringement of the principle of proportionality. The Commission found that the established falsifications of Spanish import certificates went beyond the normal commercial risk and that those falsifications had to be regarded as constituting a particular situation. The applicant, however, disputes the assertion that it failed to act as a prudent trader and that the conditions set out in Article 239 of the Community Customs Code have consequently not been satisfied.
   Third, it is alleged that the Commission has breached Article 239 of the Community Customs Code, Article 211 of the EC Treaty and has infringed the principle of legitimate expectations and the general legal principle of patere legem quam ipse fecisti. The applicant submits that the Commission has imposed on the applicant more stringent requirements of care than were dictated by the legislation and more stringent than was usual in the sector, whereas the Commission and the Spanish authorities failed to comply with their own statutory obligations.
   Fourth, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of Article 239 of the Community Customs Code and infringement of the principle of equality by reason of the fact that the Commission unjustifiably treated the imports in 1998 in a manner different to that in which it treated the imports in 1999.
   Fifth, the applicant alleges that there has been a breach of Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code. In its view, it is not possible, without more, to establish that there was no error on the part of the Spanish customs authorities within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b).
   Sixth, the applicant contends that there has been a breach of essential procedural requirements, in particular the applicant’s rights of defence.


title: Action brought on 16 March 1998 by ALZ NV against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-49/98)

text:
2.5.98                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 137/21
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty (alloy surcharge) in so
                                                                            far as it concerns the applicant,
Ð annul the decision of the Commission of 21 January
    1998 in Case IV/35.814 (Alloy surcharge) in so far as               Ð in the alternative, reduce the fine,
    it is addressed to it,
                                                                        Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
Ð alternatively, reduce substantially the fine imposed on
    it,
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        For some time a number of producers of stainless steel
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     have applied a common mark-up, which is known as the
                                                                        alloy surcharge. That price supplement is calculated on the
By the contested decision the Commission found that the                 basis of the price of the components of the alloy.
applicant, a Spanish public company active in the stainless
steel sector, together with other companies manufacturing               According to the Commission, in its decision of 21 January
these products, had infringed Article 65(1) of the ECSC                 1998, there is an agreement between the producers to that
Treaty by jointly agreeing in December 1993 to modify                   effect. The cartel restricts competition to a substantial
and apply in concert the reference values of the                        extent, since the undertakings involved produce 90 % of
calculation formula of alloy surcharges, a practice which,              all stainless steel. According to the Commission, those
the Commission claimed, had as its object and effect, the               agreements constitute an infringement of Article 65 of the
restriction and distortion of competition within the                    ECSC Treaty.
common market.
                                                                        The applicant challenges the Commission's decision on the
The pleas in law and main arguments are, in principle, the              grounds that:
same as those raised in Cases T-45/98 Krupp Thyssen
Nirosta GmbH and T-47/98 Acciai Speciali Terni and                      Ð even without the agreements all producers would have
T-49/98 ALZ NV, concerning the other companies                              taken steps to adapt prices to the economic situation,
forming the alleged cartel (1).
                                                                        Ð the Commission overestimated the impact of the alloy
The applicant further claims not to have participated in
                                                                            surcharge on prices and failed to take account of the
any agreement or concerted practice within the meaning
                                                                            circumstances of each individual undertaking
of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty. If the applicant could be
                                                                            concerned,
regarded as having participated in such agreement or
concerted practice, quod non, the infringement can, at
most, be regarded as sporadic and ephemeral and not as                  Ð the Commission imposed similar fines on all the
having the duration alleged by the Commission. Finally,                     undertakings concerned, without taking account of the
the fines imposed on the applicant are in any event                         considerable differences between the sizes of the
disproportionate and discriminatory.                                        undertakings,
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                          Ð the Commission infringed the rights of the defence.
Action brought on 16 March 1998 by ALZ NV against                       Action brought on 20 March 1998 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
          Commission of the European Communities                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-49/98)                                                         (Case T-50/98)
                          (98/C 137/46)                                                          (98/C 137/47)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       An action against the Commission of the European
Instance of the European Communities on 16 March 1998                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
by ALZ NV, established in Genk, Belgium, represented by                 Instance of the European Communities on 20 March 1998
B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, of the Brussels Bar, with an                by Lars Bo Rasmussen, residing at Dalheim
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M.                 (Luxembourg), represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the
Loesch, of the Luxembourg Bar, 11, rue Goethe.                          Luxembourg Bar, 180, route de Longwy.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð annul the Commission's decision C(1998)68 final of                    Ð annul the decision of the Commission not to promote
    21 January 1998 concerning a procedure pursuant to                      him to Grade A 4 in the 1997 promotions procedure,


title: Case T-570/08 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2013 — Deutsche Post v Commission (State aid — Postal service — Decision requiring the production of information — Appropriate nature of the time-limit — Obligation to state reasons — Relevance of the information requested)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2013 — Deutsche Post v Commission
   (Case T-570/08 RENV) (1)

   (State aid - Postal service - Decision requiring the production of information - Appropriate nature of the time-limit - Obligation to state reasons - Relevance of the information requested)
   2013/C 377/24
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Post (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: J Sedemund, T. Lübbig and M. Klasse, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 October 2008, requiring information to be provided in the proceedings relating to State aid to Deutsche Post AG [C 36/2007 (ex NN 25/2007)].

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Deutsche Post AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 5 March 1998 in Joined Cases C-199/94 P and C-200/94 P REV: Compañia Internacional de Pesca y Derivados SA (Inpesca) v. Commission of the European Communities (Revision of a judgment - New and decisive factor - Inadmissibility)

text:
2.5.98               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 137/1
                                                                  I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  2. orders Inpesca to pay the costs;
                      (Second Chamber)
                                                                      3. orders Pevasa to bear its own costs.
                       of 5 March 1998
                                                                      (1) OJ C 333, 9.12.1995.
in Joined Cases C-199/94 P and C-200/94 P REV:
CompanÄia Internacional de Pesca y Derivados SA
 (Inpesca) v. Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Revision of a judgment Ð New and decisive factor Ð
                        Inadmissibility)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (98/C 137/01)
                                                                                of 5 March 1998
                                                                      in Case C-160/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                      the Sozialgericht Karlsruhe): Manfred Molenaar, Barbara
                                                                      Fath-Molenaar v. Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Baden-
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                               Württemberg (1)
         published in the European Court Reports)                     (Freedom of movement for workers Ð Benefits designed
                                                                                to cover the risk of reliance on care)
In Joined Cases C-199/94 P and C-200/94 P REV:                                                (98/C 137/02)
CompanÄia Internacional de Pesca y Derivados SA
(Inpesca), a company incorporated under Spanish law,                                 (Language of the case: German)
established in Bermeo (Spain), represented by Maria Iciar
Angulo Fuertes, of the Vizcaya Bar, with an address for                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,                        published in the European Court Reports)
8-10 rue Mathias Hardt Ð application for revision of the
order of the Court of Justice of 26 October 1995 in Joined            In Case C-160/96: reference to the Court pursuant to
Cases C-199/94 P and C-200/94 P Pevasa and Inpesca v.                 Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Sozialgericht (Social
Commission [1995] ECR I-3709, the other parties to the                Court), Karlsruhe, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in
proceedings being: Commission of the European                         the proceedings pending before that court between
Communities (Agents: Francisco Santaolalla Gadea and                  Manfred Molenaar,           Barbara Fath-Molenaar and
JoseÂ Luis Iglesias Buhigues), and Pesqueria Vasco-                   Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Baden-Württemberg Ð on
MontanÄesa SA (Pevasa), a company incorporated under                  the interpretation of Articles 6 and 48(2) of the EC Treaty
Spanish law, established in Bermeo (Spain), represented by            Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
Maria Iciar Angulo Fuertes, of the Vizcaya Bar, with an               President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                  R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C.
Ernest Arendt, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt Ð the Court                     Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,
(Second Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President                D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), G.
of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur) and G.                     Hirsch, P. Jann, L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; G.
Hirsch, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-General; R. Grass,                 Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 March 1998, in                   Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
which it:                                                             5 March 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                      Articles 6 and 48(2) of the EC Treaty do not preclude a
1. dismisses the application for revision as inadmissible;            Member State from requiring persons working in its


title: Case C-437/99: Action brought on 16 November 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
22.1.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 20/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a                  Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon         a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are             upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for           on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
their transposition. That time-limit expired on 3 September               laid down in the directive. That period expired without Ireland
1997 without the Italian Republic having brought into force               having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the
the necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive            directives referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
referred to in the Commission’s application.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 265, 8.11.1995, p. 17-22.
                                                                          (2) on the certification of animals and animal products OJ L 13 of
(1) OJ 1996 L 236, p. 36.                                                     16.01.1997, p. 18-30.
                                                                          (3) OJ L 295, 29.10.1997, p. 35-36.
Action brought on 16 November 1999 by the Com-                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
   mission of the European Communities against Ireland                    Social Único de Algeciras, by order of that court of
                                                                          10 November 1999 in the case of Marı́a Luisa Jiménez
                                                                                Melgar against the Municipality of Los Barrios
                          (Case C-437/99)
                                                                                (Case C-438/99)
                           (2000/C 20/34)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/35)
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 16 November 1999                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented                European Communities by an order of the Juzgado de lo Social
by Mr Peter Oliver, Legal Adviser, and by Mr Keir Fitch,                  Único (Social Court), Algeciras, of 10 November 1999, which
official seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service under the             was received at the Court Registry on 17 November 1999, for
arrangement for the exchange of national officials, acting as             a preliminary ruling in the case of Marı́a Luisa Jiménez Melgar
agents, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos            against Municipality of Los Barrios, on the following questions:
Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal Service, at the
Wagner Centre, Luxembourg.                                                1. Is Article 10 of Directive 92/85/EEC (1) sufficiently clear,
                                                                               precise and unconditional to be directly effective?
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                               2. In providing that ‘Member States shall take the necessary
                                                                               measures to prohibit the dismissal of workers ... [who are
— declare that by failing to adopt the laws regulations or                     pregnant, have given birth or are breastfeeding] during the
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with                         period from the beginning of their pregnancy to the end
                                                                               of the maternity leave ... save in exceptional cases not
    — Directive 95/53/EC of the Council of 25 October 1995                     connected with their condition’, does Article 10 of the
         fixing the principles governing the organisation of                   Directive require the Member States to lay down, on a
         official inspections in the field of animal nutrition (1);            specific and exceptional basis, the available grounds for
                                                                               dismissing a worker who is pregnant, has given birth or is
    — Directive 96/93/EC of the Council of 17 December                         breast-feeding, so that they must introduce into national
         1996 (2) laying down the rules to be observed in issuing              legislation, together with the general rules on the
         the certificates required by veterinary legislation;                  extinguishment of employment contracts, a further special,
                                                                               exceptional and more limited set of rules expressly for
                                                                               those cases in which the worker is pregnant, has given
    — Directive 97/61/EC of the Council of 20 October 1997                     birth or is breast-feeding?
         amending the Annex to Directive 91/492/EEC laying
         down the health conditions for the production and                3. What repercussions does Article 10 of the Directive have
         placing on the market of live bi-valve molluscs (3)                   regarding non-renewal by an employer of a fixed-term
                                                                               contract of a woman who is pregnant under the same
    and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof,                        circumstances as prevailed in relation to earlier contracts?
    Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those                   Does Article 10 affect the protection enjoyed by a pregnant
    Directives, and                                                            woman in the context of temporary employment relation-
                                                                               ships, and if so, in what way, according to what parameters
— order Ireland to pay the costs.                                              and to what extent?


title: Case T-133/09: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2012 — I Marchi Italiani and Basile v OHIM — Osra (B. Antonio Basile 1952) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark B. Antonio Basile 1952 — Earlier national word mark BASILE — Relative ground for refusal — Limitation in consequence of acquiescence — Article 53(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2012 — I Marchi Italiani and Basile v OHIM — Osra (B. Antonio Basile 1952)
   (Case T-133/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark B. Antonio Basile 1952 - Earlier national word mark BASILE - Relative ground for refusal - Limitation in consequence of acquiescence - Article 53(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 243/25
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: I Marchi Italiani Srl (Naples, Italy) and Antonio Basile (Giugliano in Campania, Italy); (represented by: G. Militerni, L. Militerni and F. Gimmelli, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by A. Sempio and subsequently by P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Osra SA (Rovereta, Saint-Marin) (represented by: A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, R. Cartella and G. Petrocchi, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 January 2009 (Case R 502/2008-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Osra SA and M. Antonio Basile.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Removes the name of the second applicant, Antonio Basile, from the list of applicants in Case T-133/09;

               2.

               Dismisses the action;

               3.

               Orders I Marchi Italiani Srl to pay the costs, other than those relating to the discontinuance;

               4.

               Orders Mr Basile to bear his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Case C-178/11: Action brought on 14 April 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Malta

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/12

         Action brought on 14 April 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-178/11)
   2011/C 179/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro, K. Mifsud-Bonnici, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Malta

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by failing to establish strategic noise maps in respect of the major roads and agglomeration identified by Malta in its report under the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Directive 2002/49/EC (1), to make them available and disseminate them to the public, and to send the information from these strategic noise maps to the Commission, Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 7(1), Article 9(1) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise; and

               —

               order Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   According to the report that Malta submitted in 2006 pursuant to the second subparagraph of article 7(1) of the directive, 1 agglomeration as well as 43 major roads within Malta's territory fall within the scope of the directive. It follows that strategic noise maps for this agglomeration as well as for the major roads in question should have been established by 30 June 2007 and should have been made available and disseminated to the public. Additionally, information from these strategic noise maps and summaries of the local action plans should have been sent to the Commission by 30 December 2007.
   It is apparent that to date, due to internal obstacles relating to national tendering procedures, Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations to make strategic noise maps for the agglomeration and the major roads in question, to make available and disseminate the strategic noise maps to the public and to communicate the relevant information to the Commission.

      (1)  Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise — Declaration by the Commission in the Conciliation Committee on the Directive relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise
   OJ L 189, p. 12


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia, Terza Sezione Civile, by order of that court of 16 November 1996 in the case of Società Palazzo Piacentini Srl against Amministrazione Finanziaria dello Stato (Case C-182/97)

text:
12 . 7 . 97               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 212/ 15
                 — with respect to the competent institution of               1.    In view of the fact that the tassa di concessione
                     the Member State in which the second                           governative ( administrative charge ) for entering
                     activity is pursued ?                                          companies in the Register of Companies is unlawful in
                 — with respect to the person employing a                           so far as it infringes Council Directive 69/335/EEC of
                     worker pursuing an activity in two                             17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising
                     Member States ?                                                of capital ( 1 ), is the application to claims for
                                                                                reimbursement of the three-year limitation period laid
             2 . If so, until when ?                                                down by Article 13 of Presidential Decree 641 /72
                                                                                compatible with Community law, or does it constitute
       ( b ) Does Form E 101 have retroactive effect in so far                      failure to apply Directive 69/335/EEC, having regard
             as the periods to which it relates have already                        to the fact that 'so long as a Directive has not been
             come to an end at the time when the form is
                                                                                properly transposed into national law, individuals are
             issued or produced ?                                                   unable to ascertain the full extent of their rights'?
(') Official Journal , English Special Edition 1971 II, p. 416 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p. 6 .                                     2 . In the absence of a specific provision in Presidential
                                                                                Decree 331 /93 governing the limitation period for the
                                                                                reimbursement of undue payments, do the combined
                                                                                provisions of Articles 2934 and 2946 of the Civil
                                                                                Code apply, having regard to the fact that the payment
                                                                                in question is not due ( Article 2033 of the Civil
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                             Code )?
Nederlanden of 7 May 1997, in the case of A. J. van der
           Kooy against the Staatssecretaris van Financien                    3 . Independently of Questions 1 and 2, do the time limits
                             ( Case C-181/97)                                       laid down by Article 13 of Presidential Decree 641 /72
                                 ( 97/C 212/25 )
                                                                                and Article 2946 of the Civil Code, respectively, start
                                                                                to run from the date of payment or, having regard to
                                                                                the principle referred to above that ' so long as a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              Directive has not been properly transposed into
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad                                    national law, individuals are unable to ascertain the
 der Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of                             full extent of their rights', from the date of publication
 7 May 1997, received at the Court Registry on 9 May                                 of Presidential Decree 331 /93 in the Gazzetta Ufficiale
 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of A. J. van der                         della Repubblica Italiana ?
 Kooy against the Staatssecretaris van Financien on the
 following question:                                                           (') Official Journal, English Special Edition 1969 II, p. 412.
 In the light of Articles 132 ( 1 ) and 227 of the EC Treaty,
 is Article 7 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the sixth Directive to be interpreted
 as meaning that the importation into the Netherlands of a
 ship which was previously in free circulation in the
 Netherlands Antilles is to be regarded as the entry into the
 Community of a product which does not fulfil the                             Action brought on 9 May 1997 by the Commission of the
 conditions of Articles 9 and 10 of the EC Treaty ?                            European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Germany
                                                                                Case C-184/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/27)
  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                       An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
  Brescia, Terza Sezione Civile, by order of that court of                     brought before the Court of Justice of the European
  16 November           1996 in the case of Società Palazzo                    Communities on 9 May 1997 by the Commission of the
  Piacentini Srl against Amministrazione Finanziaria dello                     European Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen,
                                        Stato
                                                                               Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                               ( Case C-l 82/97)                               in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                                   ( 97/C 212/26 )
                                                                               of the Commission's Legal Service, C 254 Wagner Centre,
                                                                               Kirchberg.
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
  European Communities by order of the Tribunale ( District
   Court ), Terza Sezione Civile (Third Civil Division),
   Brescia , of 16 November 1996 , received at the Court                        1 . declare that, by failing to establish programmes, in
   Registry on 12 May 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the                           accordance with Article 7 of Council Directive 76/464/
   case of Societa Piacentini Sri against Amministrazione                             EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain
   dello Stato ( State Finance Administration ) on the                                dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
   following questions :                                                              environment of the Community ( 1 ), with quality