title: Case C-239/03: Action brought on 4 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
2.8.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 184/23
       Must those directives be interpreted as requiring the               by G. Valero Jordana and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents, with
       national court to favour the interpretation of national law         an address for service in Luxembourg.
       obliging consumer credit institutions to bring to the atten-
       tion of the consumer the clause concerning the variation
       in that annual percentage rate of charge before each                The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
       renewal of the agreement?                                           Court should:
2.     Must those directives be interpreted as designed solely to
                                                                           —     find that, by failing to take all appropriate measures to
       protect the consumer or, beyond that, to organise the
                                                                                prevent, abate and combat the substantial and prolonged
       single market in consumer credit?
                                                                                pollution of the Étang de Berre and by failing to take due
                                                                                account of the provisions of Annex III to the Athens
       Does the requirement of an interpretation in conformity                   Protocol of 17 May 1980 for the Protection of the
       with the aims — at the very least those of protecting the                 Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-Based
       consumer — of those directives mean that the court may                    Sources (1) by amending the authorisation for discharges
       raise of its own motion defects in credit agreements, such                of the substances referred to in Annex II to the Protocol
       as the failure to include a written statement of the annual               in consequence of its conclusion, the French Republic has
       percentage rate of charge or the clause providing for its                 failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) and (3) of
       variation?                                                                the Protocol and Articles 4(1) and 8 of the Barcelona
                                                                                Convention of 16 February 1976 for the Protection of the
3.     Must those directives be interpreted as meaning that the                  Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (2), approved on
       court is required to favour the interpretation of national                behalf of the Community by Council Decisions 77/585/
       law authorising it to uphold pleas of irregularity vitiating              EEC (3) and 83/101/EEC (4) on 25 July 1977 and
       the conclusion or renewal of a consumer credit agree-                     28 February 1983, and Article 300(7) (formerly
       ment, such as those described above, raised by the                        Article 228) of the Treaty establishing the European
       consumer or of the court's own motion, without any                        Community;
       time-limit, in a dispute arising out of an action for
       payment brought by the credit institution?                          —     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
       If not, must those directives be interpreted as meaning
       that the court is required to favour the interpretation of
       national law authorising it to set aside a national provi-
       sion prohibiting the consumer or the court of its own
       motion from raising a plea of irregularity affecting the
       conclusion or renewal of a consumer credit agreement, at            Pleas in law and main arguments
       the end of a time-limit derogating from the ordinary law,
       inasmuch as it constitutes an exceptional restriction of the
       consumer's right to bring an action and compromises the             Under Article 3(c) of the Athens Protocol, the area to which
       effectiveness of consumer protection?                               the Protocol applies includes saltwater marshes communicating
                                                                           with the sea, of which the Étang de Berre is one. It therefore
                                                                           follows from Article 6(1) of the Protocol that the French
(1) Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation         Republic must reduce direct and indirect discharges of
    of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the          substances into that lake when those discharges give rise to
    Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48).        harmful effects, and must prevent and combat those
(2) Council Directive 90/88/EEC of 22 February 1990 amending Direc-        discharges. That involves an obligation as to the result to be
    tive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regulations and
                                                                           achieved.
    administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
    consumer credit (OJ 1990 L 61, p. 14).
                                                                           The abatement of direct and indirect discharges of substances
                                                                           into the Étang de Berre must be stringent. That stringency
                                                                           requires a sizeable and lasting reduction in the quantity of
                                                                           substances discharged, with a major and lasting positive effect
                                                                           on the environment, and also applies to the method which the
                                                                           State uses to arrive at that result. However, the French
                                                                           Republic has not abated the pollution from land-based sources
Action brought on 4 June 2003 by the Commission of the                     in the Étang de Berre in accordance with its obligations under
     European Communities against the French Republic                      Article 6(1) of the Protocol, in conjunction with Articles 4(1)
                                                                           and 8 of the Barcelona Convention of 16 February 1976 for
                                                                           the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution. Since
                           (Case C-239/03)                                 1983, as the result of the operation of the hydroelectric power
                                                                           station at Saint-Chamas, the lake has suffered substantial and
                           (2003/C 184/41)                                 prolonged point-source land-based pollution, with considerable
                                                                           negative effects on flora, fauna and amenities. While it is true
                                                                           that there has been abatement of the pollution, the reduction
                                                                           in discharges has been belated, erratic and, above all, extremely
An action against the French Republic was brought before the               limited. Finally, the measures taken by the public authorities
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 June 2003                for the purpose of long-term pollution abatement in the Étang
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented                 de Berre have been limited in scope.
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/24                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            2.8.2003
Pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Protocol, the discharge into the            Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the
lake of the substances referred to in Article 6(1) is subject to                European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
two, cumulative conditions: first, there must be a discharge
authorisation issued by the competent national authorities and,                                      (Case C-246/03)
secondly, that authorisation must take due account of all the
relevant provisions of Annex III to the Protocol. The French                                         (2003/C 184/43)
Republic has failed to comply with either of those two condi-
tions.
                                                                            An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
(1) OJ L 67 of 12.03.1983, p. 3.                                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 June 2003
(2) Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against          by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
    Pollution (Barcelona Convention), OJ L 240 of 19.9.1977, p. 3.          by Minas Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.
(3) Council Decision of 25 July 1977 concluding the Convention for
    the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution and the
    Protocol for the prevention of the pollution of the Mediterranean       The Commission claims that the Court should:
    Sea by dumping from ships and aircraft (OJ L 240 of 19.09.1977,
    p. 1).                                                                  —     declare that, by failing to adopt and, in any event, to
(4) Council Decision of 28 February 1983 concluding the Protocol for              notify to the Commission the laws, regulations and
    the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution from                administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
    land-based sources (OJ L 67 of 12.03.1983, p. 1).                             tive 2000/53/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                                Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles, the
                                                                                Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                that directive;
                                                                            —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
                                                                            directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour adminis-                     each Member State to which they are addressed.
trative by order of that Court of 3 June 2003 in the case
of Minister for Finance against Jean-Claude Weidert and                     Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
                           Elisabeth Paulus                                 to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
                                                                            to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
                                                                            or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
                                                                            Community.
                           (Case C-242/03)
                                                                            It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                            measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
                           (2003/C 184/42)
                                                                            The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
                                                                            has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incor-
                                                                            poration of the directive at issue into Greek law.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      (1) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.
European Communities by order of the Cour administrative
(Higher Administrative Court) of 3 June 2003, received at the
Court Registry on 6 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Minister for Finance against Jean-Claude Weidert and
Elisabeth Paulus on the following question:
                                                                            Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Is Article 129c of the Law of 4 December 1967 on income
tax, as amended, in the version applicable to the 2000 tax
                                                                                (Case C-247/03)
year, which, subject to certain conditions and limits, grants tax
relief to taxpayers who are natural persons and acquire shares
representing cash contributions in fully-taxable resident capital                                    (2003/C 184/44)
companies, compatible with the principle of the free move-
ment of capital within the European Community as laid down
by Article 56(1) of the EC Treaty, taking account of the                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
restrictions on that principle laid down inter alia by                      Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 June 2003
Article 58(1)(a) of the EC Treaty?                                          by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                            by Michel van Beek, Legal Adviser, and Minas Konstantinidis,
                                                                            of its Legal Service.


title: Case T-102/09: Order of the General Court of 1 September 2011 — Elosta v Commission (Action for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Out of time — No force majeure — No excusable error — Inadmissibility)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/20

         Order of the General Court of 1 September 2011 — Elosta v Commission
   (Case T-102/09) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Out of time - No force majeure - No excusable error - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 319/41
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Abdelrazag Elosta (Pinner, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Grieves and A. McMurdie, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Paasivirta and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Szostak, G. Étienne, M.-M. Josephides and E. Finnegan, Agents

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 of 22 December 2008 amending for the 103rd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2002 L 345, p. 60), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Abdelrazag Elosta is ordered to pay his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

               3.

               The Council of the European Union is ordered to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.


title: Case T-594/16: Order of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Walton v Commission (Action for annulment — Civil service — Temporary agents — Severance grant — Revision of the calculation — Res judicata — Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/32

         Order of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Walton v Commission
   (Case T-594/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Civil service - Temporary agents - Severance grant - Revision of the calculation - Res judicata - Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2017/C 121/47)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Robert Walton (Oxford, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A.-C. Simon and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, seeking the annulment of the decision of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment notified by the Commission’s letter of 15 March 2016 rejecting as inadmissible the applicant’s request for revision of the calculation of the severance grant following his resignation.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Robert Walton is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016 (Case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-24/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case C-14/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — Ingenieurbüro Michael Weiss und Partner GbR v Industrie- und Handelskammer Berlin (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Annexes to the document not translated — Consequences)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — Ingenieurbüro Michael Weiss und Partner GbR v Industrie- und Handelskammer Berlin
   (Case C-14/07) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 - Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents - Annexes to the document not translated - Consequences)
   (2008/C 158/07)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ingenieurbüro Michael Weiss und Partner GbR

      Defendant: Industrie- und Handelskammer Berlin

      Joined party: Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners Ltd
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 37) — Refusal to accept an application served in another Member State and drawn up in the language of that Member State addressed on the ground that the annexes to the application are available only in the language of the Member State of transmission, the language designated by the parties as the language of correspondence in a contract concluded between them
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters is to be interpreted as meaning that the addressee of a document instituting the proceedings which is to be served does not have the right to refuse to accept that document, provided that it enables the addressee to assert his rights in legal proceedings in the Member State of transmission, where annexes are attached to that document consisting of documentary evidence which is not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands, but which has a purely evidential function and is not necessary for understanding the subject matter of the claim and the cause of action.
               It is for the national court to determine whether the content of the document instituting the proceedings is sufficient to enable the defendant to assert his rights or whether it is necessary for the party instituting the proceedings to remedy the fact that a necessary annex has not been translated.

               2.

               Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1348/2000 is to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the addressee of a document served has agreed in a contract concluded with the applicant in the course of his business that correspondence is to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission does not give rise to a presumption of knowledge of that language, but is evidence which the court may take into account in determining whether that addressee understands the language of the Member State of transmission.

               3.

               Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 is to be interpreted as meaning that the addressee of a document served may not in any event rely on that provision in order to refuse acceptance of annexes to the document which are not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands where the addressee concluded a contract in the course of his business in which he agreed that correspondence was to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission and the annexes concern that correspondence and are written in the agreed language.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Removal from the Register of Cases T-63/00 and T-90/00

text:
19.5.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 150/35
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          regard for the welfare of officials and the principles of good
                                                                         management and sound administration which require that an
The applicant argues first of all that, given that the first written     agent with a background such as his be retained in the
test entailed dealing with a subject which falls within an area          Commission’s employ.
in which he has been working for a long time and in which he
is recognised as being highly qualified and competent, the
mark which he was awarded (21 out of 50, the minimum
required being 25) is beyond comprehension, unless the
Selection Board for the competition committed a manifest
error of appraisal. He adds that, by marking his test in a               Removal from the Register of Cases T-63/00 and
manner that is clearly incorrect, the defendant treated his test                                    T-90/00 (1)
differently as compared to the tests submitted by the other
candidates, which amounts to discrimination.                                                     (2001/C 150/67)
The applicant furthermore relies on infringement of the
obligation to provide reasons and the general principle of                                 (Language of the case: French)
transparency, in so far as the defendant did not provide him
with any adequate or useful information as regards the exact             By order of 23 January 2001, the President of the First
and detailed criteria applied by the Selection Board and as              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
regards the actual application of the evaluation criteria in his         Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
case.                                                                    Cases T-63/00 and T-90/00, Lars Bo Rasmussen v Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities.
Finally, the applicant claims that, by adopting the contested
decision, the defendant failed to fulfil its duty to have                (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00 and OJ C 163 of 10.6.00.


C 48/32              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
       Removal from the register of Case T-193/95 (1)              and Case T-206/97 Olivier Brunet, Luigi Brusa, Peter
                        (1999/C 48/68)                             Cavendish, HeÂleÁne Chraye, Stella da Costa Santos,
                                                                   Tamara Diomede Basili, Christina Laso Sanz, GeÂrard
                                                                   Lhost, Carlos Martinez Mongay, Viriato Monteiro Da
               (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   Silva, Nicolioulas Panagiotis, Carla Piccinni-Leopardi,
                                                                   Jorge Manuel Pinheiro De Jesus Ferreira, Angelo Salsi and
By order of 30 November 1998, the President of the First           Graham Willmott v. Commission of the European
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             Communities.
Communities ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-193/95: Fintecna SpA v. Commission of the                   (1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997, OJ C 166, 31.5.1997, OJ C 181,
European Communities.                                                  14.6.1997, OJ C 228, 26.7.1997, OJ C 318, 18.10.1997 and
                                                                       OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
(1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case T-292/97 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case T-25/97 ( )1
                                                                                (1999/C 48/71)
                        (1999/C 48/69)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   By order of 1 December 1998, the President of the Fourth
By order of 14 December 1998, the President of the First           Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
Communities ordered the removal from the register of               removal from the register of Case T-292/97: Assidomän
Case T-25/97: Michael Pulch v. Commission of the                   Kraft Products AB, AB Iggesunds Bruk, Korsnäs AB,
European Communities.                                              Modo Paper AB, Södra Cell AB, Stora Kopparbergs
                                                                   Bergslags AB and Svenska Cellulosa AB (SCA) v.
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.                                           Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 113, 11.4.1998.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-38/97,
T-77/97, T-107/97, T-139/97, T-154/97, T-162/97,
                  T-205/97 and T-206/97 (1)                                Removal from the register of Case T-67/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 48/70)                                                     (1999/C 48/72)
               (Language of the case: French)                                      (Language of the case: French)
By order of 15 December 1998 the President of the First            By order of 11 December 1998, the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Instance of the European Communities ruled that the                Communities ordered the removal from the register of
following cases be removed from the register: Case                 Case T-67/98: TheÂodore Giannakopoulos v. Commission
T-38/97 Lucette GeÂrard, Case T-77/97 JoseÂ Baiges Planas,         of the European Communities.
Viviane Baretti-Piazzi, David Broderick, Alessandro
Buttice, Peter Grasmann, Timothy Hayes, Louis Hersom,
                                                                   (1) OJ C 208, 4.7.1998.
Owen Jones, Jean-Louis Levy-Gorgeot, Saturno Mallia,
Fenardo Mazza, Yasmine Pire, William Richer, Josefa
Rodriguez Portero, Robert Smyth, Alain Van Hamme and
Fionnuala Walker, Case T-107/97 Suzanne Smetes, Case
T-139/97 Marc Blijweert, Manuel Carvalhosa, Rita
Lehmann, Annette Mills, Glenys Nichol, Jeffery Piper,
Francisco Sentieiro and Guy Thiry, Case T-154/97 Patricia                 Removal from the register of Case T-140/98 (1)
Brunko-Metzger, Mariette Colinet, Christiane Degueldre,                                    (1999/C 48/73)
Nicole Dumont, Emile Espagnet, Paul Fraix, Georgios
Katalagarianakis, Danielle Lardinois, Carlos Alberto Leite
Mateus, Liborio Licata, Alberto Piazzi, Cornelis Pot, Rita                         (Language of the case: French)
Sacca-George, Jacques Simon and Harry Waterschoot,
Case T-162/97 Albert Verleysen, Case T-205/97                      By order of 9 December 1998, the President of the Fourth
Christopher Atkin, David Cornwell and Paul Smeulders               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 1998 in Case C-283/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg, Freiburg): Karlheinz Fischer v Finanzamt Donaueschingen (Tax provisions - Sixth VAT Directive - Application to the organisation of unlawful games of chance - Determination of the taxable amount)

text:
C 258/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.8.98
Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents: Panagiotis                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Mylonopoulos and Evi Skandalou) Ð application for a
declaration that, by failing to establish programmes                                        (Sixth Chamber)
including quality objectives and setting deadlines for their
implementation in order to reduce the pollution of Lake                                     of 11 June 1998
Vegorrítis and the Soulos River (in Case C-232/95) and of
the Gulf of Pagasaí (in Case C-233/95) by the dangerous              in Case C-283/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
substances within List II of Council Directive 76/464/EEC            the     Finanzgericht     Baden-Württemberg,         Freiburg):
of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous                    Karlheinz Fischer v Finanzamt Donaueschingen (1)
substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the
                                                                     (Tax provisions Ð Sixth VAT Directive Ð Application to
Community (OJ L 129 of 18.5.1976, p. 23), and by
                                                                     the organisation of unlawful games of chance Ð
failing to make discharges into Lake Vegorrítis and the
                                                                                Determination of the taxable amount)
Soulos River (in Case C-232/95) and of the Gulf of
Pagasaí (in Case C-233/95), which are liable to contain
                                                                                (98/C 258/07)
substances within List II, conditional on the grant of prior
authorisation laying down emission standards, the
Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the EC Treaty and Directive 76/464/EEC, in particular
Articles 2 (in Case C-232/95) and 7 (in Cases C-232/95                             (Language of the case: German)
and C-233/95) thereof Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second
Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,
G. F. Mancini and G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), Judges; G.
Tesauro, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 June 1998, in                       published in the European Court Reports)
which it:
                                                                     In Case C-283/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     of the EC Treaty by the Finanzgericht Baden-
                                                                     Württemberg, Freiburg (Germany) for a preliminary ruling
1. Declares that, by failing to establish programmes                 in the proceedings pending before that court between
     including quality objectives and setting deadlines for          Karlheinz Fischer and Finanzamt Donaueschingen Ð on
     their implementation in order to reduce the pollution           the interpretation of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/
     of the waters of Lake Vegorrítis and its tributary, the         EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of
     Soulos River, and of the waters of the Gulf of Pagasaí,         the Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð Common
     by the dangerous substances within List II of Council           system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
     Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution                 (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1) Ð the Court (Sixth
     caused by certain dangerous substances discharged               Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the
     into the aquatic environment of the Community, the              Chamber, G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur), P. J. G. Kapteyn,
     Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations          J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
     under that directive, in particular Article 7 thereof;          Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 June 1998, in which
                                                                     it has ruled:
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;                       The unlawful operation of a game of chance, in the event
                                                                     roulette, falls within the scope of the Sixth Council
                                                                     Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                     harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                     to turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:
                                                                     uniform basis of assessment. Article 13(B)(f) of that
3. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                    directive must be interpreted as meaning that a Member
                                                                     State may not impose value added tax on that activity
                                                                     when the corresponding activity carried on by a licensed
                                                                     public casino is exempted.
(1) OJ C 248 of 23.9.1995.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 268 of 14.10.1995.


title: Case T-28/00: Action brought on 15 February 2000 by Luis Borrego Alias against the Committee of the Regions

text:
29.4.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 122/37
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Commission Decision No 2749 of 12 October                        — annul the decision of the Commission of 13 December
    1999, and                                                                 1999;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 — order the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 109 921
                                                                              in performance of the supply contract;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          — order the Commission to pay default interest;
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.
The applicant in this case challenges the decision refusing to
allow him to file a statement with the Procura della Repubblica
(Public Prosecutor’s Office) at the Pretura Circondariale di
Varese (Varese District Court) concerning the disappearance of           Pleas in law and main arguments
24 autopsy specimens taken for the purposes of an expert’s
report, which it is impossible to repeat, in criminal proceedings
                                                                         The applicant, a company which successfully bid in response
pending before the Pretura di Foggia (Foggia District Court),
                                                                         to a call for tenders concerning a consignment of 15 000
and held in the radiochemical laboratory at the JRC in Ispra.
                                                                         tonnes of maize pursuant to Regulation No 990/98 of 11 May
                                                                         1998, contests a Commission decision refusing its request for
The contested decision justifies the refusal to allow the                payment of an additional sum of EUR 109 921,41 for the
applicant to file that statement with the Italian judicial               supply, which was furnished in accordance with the Regu-
authorities on the grounds that such refusal did not entail              lation. According to the Commission, deductions relating to
criminal consequences.                                                   undelivered quantities were calculated in accordance with the
                                                                         rules in force.
In support of his application, the applicant alleges:
                                                                         The applicant alleges that the Commission is thereby in breach
— Breach of Article 19 of the Staff Regulations;                         of its contractual obligations. It contests the figure taken by
                                                                         the Commission to be the final quantity on which to base
— Misuse of powers consisting, in particular, of a failure to            payment, and also the fact that it, the applicant, was deemed
    state reasons, distortion of matters of fact and of law, the         liable in respect of theft from its Niamey warehouses. The
    obvious inconsistency of the contested decision, and                 applicant also maintains that those thefts are accurately
    breach of the principles of sound administration, trans-             quantifiable; that it is easy to assign a value to the quantities
    parency, equal treatment, breach of the duty of the                  on which payment is outstanding; and that the applicant has
    Community and judicial authorities to cooperate in good              not been in a position to challenge the certificate of conformity
    faith and the principle of proportionality.                          because the wording is so ambiguous.
Action brought on 11 February 2000 by Société Lecureur                   Action brought on 15 February 2000 by Luis Borrego
SA against the Commission of the European Communities                             Alias against the Committee of the Regions
                         (Case T-26/00)                                                            (Case T-28/00)
                        (2000/C 122/56)                                                           (2000/C 122/57)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                          (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                An action against the Committee of the Regions was brought
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
European Communities on 11 February 2000 by Société                      on 15 February 2000 by Luis Borrego Alias, residing in
Lecureur SA, whose seat is in Paris, represented by Lise                 Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise
Funck-Brentano, Avocat, Paris, and Jean Villette, Avocat,                Parmentier and Véronique Peere, Avocats, Brussels, with an
Versailles, France, with an address for service in Luxembourg            address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of the Société
at the Chambers of Jacques Neuen, 1 Place du Théâtre.                    de Gestion Fiduciaire Sarl, 2-4 Rue Beck.
 ---pagebreak--- C 122/38               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    29.4.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             European Communities on 16 February 2000 by BSB Fleisch-
                                                                        import, whose registered office is in Berlin, represented by
— annul the Selection Board’s decision not to admit the                 Dietrich Ehle and Dirk Ehle, Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an
    applicant to the oral tests in internal competition CdR             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc
    B/01/98;                                                            Lucius, Rechtsanwalt, 6 Rue Michel Welter.
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — annul the Commission’s decision (REM 2/99) of 8 Nov-
                                                                            ember 1999;
The applicant, who is an official in Grade C with the Economic
and Social Committee, argues that the Selection Board did not
admit him to the tests on the basis of an unlawful notice of            — order the Commission to pay the costs.
competition. Both in endorsing that notice and in adopting
the contested decision, the appointing authority acted contrary
to the principle of sound administration and infringed Article
27 of the Staff Regulations.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his claims, the applicant submits:
                                                                        The contested decision refuses an application by the Federal
— the contested decision unlawfully excludes the applicant
                                                                        Republic of Germany for authorisation to waive duties of DEM
    on the ground that he does not possess a certificate of
                                                                        187 011,60 on the applicant’s importation of beef from
    secondary education, even though he has a university
                                                                        Argentina. The Hauptzollamt Essen demanded post-clearance
    qualification at least equivalent thereto;
                                                                        recovery of that amount on the ground that certificates of
                                                                        genuineness presented in the course of the clearance procedure
— in requiring Grade B status as a condition for admission,             were forgeries.
    the notice of competition wrongly excluded candidates
    possessing equivalent, or even higher, qualifications;
                                                                        The applicant maintains that there has been an infringement
— the contested decision excludes the applicant on the                  of essential procedural rights, in that it has unlawfully been
    ground that he does not possess the requisite professional
                                                                        refused access to the administrative files of the Commission. It
    experience specified by the notice of competition, notwith-
                                                                        also maintains that the decision reveals a significant defect in
    standing the fact that, within the Economic and Social              reasoning, as it entirely fails to reflect the judgment of the
    Committee, he has handled tasks entailing responsibility
                                                                        Court of First Instance in Case T-42/96 Eyckeler & Malt v
    and independent organisation.
                                                                        Commission [1998] ECR II-401, even though that judgment
                                                                        concerned a legal and factual situation that was virtually
                                                                        identical and the applicant had pointed that out.
                                                                        The applicant further accuses the Commission of a manifest
                                                                        error of assessment in applying Article 13 of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                        No 1430/79. Post-clearance recovery from the applicant
Action brought on 16 February 2000 by BSB Fleischim-                    resulted from obvious omissions of the Commission in
port against the Commission of the European Communi-                    inspecting the quotas of ‘Hilton beef’. Had the Commission
                               ties                                     conducted itself properly, post-clearance recovery would have
                                                                        been avoided. Post-clearance recovery was, moreover, inequi-
                                                                        table, as the applicant had dealt in good faith. In the light of
                         (Case T-31/00)                                 these circumstances, the applicant’s normal business risk was
                                                                        exceeded. The Commission was therefore wrong to proceed
                                                                        on the basis that there were no special circumstances within
                        (2000/C 122/58)                                 the meaning of Article 13 of that regulation, and its decision
                                                                        should be annulled.
                  (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 March 2001 in Case T-77/99: Girish Ojha v the Commission of the European Communities (Officials — VAT-free importation of personal effects — Action for damages — Breach of administrative duty)

text:
C 161/16                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2.6.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 February 2001
                          of 6 March 2001
                                                                            in Case T-118/99: Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
in Case T-77/99: Girish Ojha v the Commission of the                        (Officials — Competitions — Rules on the use of languages
                    European Communities (1)                                — Admissibility — Non-admission to the oral test — Access
                                                                                to documents)
(Officials — VAT-free importation of personal effects —                                               (2001/C 161/35)
    Action for damages — Breach of administrative duty)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                          (2001/C 161/34)                                   In Case T-118/99: Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina, an official of the
                                                                            Commission posted to the Joint Research Centre at Ispra,
                                                                            represented by M. Rizzoglio and F. Colussi, Avvocati, with an
                                                                            address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities (Agent: G. Valsesia) — application for
                    (Language of the case: French)                          the annulment of the decision of the selection board in
                                                                            competition COM/B/18/96 not to admit the applicant to the
                                                                            oral tests in that competition and, if necessary, the annulment
                                                                            of the list drawn up on the basis of the written tests and of the
In Case T-77/99: Girish Ojha, an official in the Commission of
the European Communities, residing in Bierbeek (Belgium),                   final list of successful candidates in the competition —
                                                                            the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of
represented by Antonietta Ottati and Marc Dallemagne, avo-
                                                                            B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
cats, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: C. Berardis-Kayser) — application for compensation to               J. Palacio González, Administrator, gave a judgment on
                                                                            7 February 2001, in which it:
make good the material and non-material damage suffered by
the applicant as a result of being deprived of use of his
                                                                            1.    dismisses the application;
vehicle during the period running from 1 February 1996 to
31 December 1997— the Court of First Instance (First                        2.    orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.
Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras
and N.J. Forwood, Judges; D. Christensen, for the Registrar,
gave a judgment on 6 March 2001, in which it:                               (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.99.
1.    orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of
      BFR 35 000 by way of compensation for the material damage
      caused to him, together with interest at an annual rate of
      interest of 6,75 %, with effect from delivery of the judgment
      until actual payment;
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    dismisses the remainder of the application;                                                     of 6 March 2001
                                                                            in Case T-192/99: Roderick Dunnett and Others v Euro-
3.    orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay one half                              pean Investment Bank (1)
      of those of the applicant;
                                                                            (General principle of labour law common to the Member
                                                                            States — Bona fide consultation of staff representatives —
4.    orders the applicant to bear one half of its own costs.                              Abolition of a financial advantage)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/36)
(1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.99.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            In Case T-192/99: Roderick Dunnett, residing in Luxembourg
                                                                            (Luxembourg), Thomas Hackett, residing in Rameldange (Lux-
                                                                            embourg), Mateo Turró Calvet, residing in Rameldange,


title: Case T-80/02: Action brought on 19 March 2002 by Tetra Laval B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
29.6.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 156/27
Action brought on 14 March 2002 by Classen Holding                      Action brought on 19 March 2002 by Tetra Laval B.V.
KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                   against the Commission of the European Communities
                             Market
                                                                                (Case T-80/02)
                         (Case T-71/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 156/54)
                        (2002/C 156/53)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                          (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 March 2002 by Classen Holding                European Communities on 19 March 2002 by Tetra Laval
KG, represented by Mr Stephan von Petersdorff-Campen of                 B.V., represented by Mr Alexandre Vandencasteele and Mr
Rospatt Osten Pross Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf (Germany).                Denis Waelbroeck (Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff), Mr
                                                                        Andreas Weitbrecht, (Latham & Watkins) and Mr Sven Völcker
                                                                        (Wilmer Cutler & Pickering) of Brussels (Belgium).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      Office dated 14 December 2001 (Appeal No. R0810/
      1999-2), registered letter of notification of the Decision
      received on 14 January 2002;                                      —      annul the contested Decision in its entirety;
—     order the Office to bear the costs of the action.                 —      order the Commission to pay the costs of the procedure.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant of the Com-         International Paper Company
munity trade mark:
                                                                        The applicant in the present case is primarily active in
Trade mark concerned:         Word           mark         BECKET        carton packaging. It envisaged a concentration with another
                              EXPRESSION — Application No               company, Sidel, mainly active in (polyester) packaging equip-
                              93880 for certain goods in                ment. This concentration was declared to be incompatible
                              class 16                                  with the common market and the EEA Agreement by the
                                                                        Commission. The applicant has introduced an application for
Proprietor of an oppos-       Classen Holding KG                        annulment of this Decision (Case T-5/02; Communication
ing trade mark or sign:                                                 published in OJ C 68, p. 19).
Opposing trade mark or        Word mark Expression for certain
sign:                         goods in class 16                         In the present case, the applicant contests the decision of the
                                                                        Commission to oblige the applicant to sell Sidel as a measure
Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition               taken to restore the conditions of effective competition
sition Division:                                                        pursuant to Article 8(4) of Council Regulation 4064/89 (1)
                                                                        (Merger Control Regulation).
Decision of the Board of      To declare the appeal inadmissible
Appeal:                       and reject the request for restitutio
                              in integrum
                                                                        The applicant submits in the first place that the contested
Pleas in law relied on:       Incorrect interpretation of Article       Decision is devoid of any basis, as it is the direct consequence
                              78 of Council Regulation No 40/           of the earlier Decision declaring the concentration incompat-
                              94 — Infringement of the appli-           ible with the common market. This earlier Decision being void
                              cant’s right to due process of law        itself, according to the applicant, it cannot serve as basis for
                                                                        the Decision contested in this case. The applicant refers in this
                                                                        respect to the pleas and arguments stated in its application in
                                                                        case T-5/02.
 ---pagebreak--- C 156/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      29.6.2002
The applicant further submits that Article 8 (4) of the Merger            Pleas in law and main arguments
Control regulation, which constitutes the legal basis of the
present Decision, is only applicable where a concentration has
been implemented. The applicant states, however, that the                 The Communuity Trade          SECURECLIENT
concentration in this case has not been implemented in any
                                                                          Mark concerned:
way.
                                                                          Product or service:           ‘Computer software to protect
Thirdly, the applicant argues that the modalities for the                                               systems       from    unauthorised
divestiture constitute an infringement of Community law.                                                access’, in International Class 9.
According to the applicant, these modalities are dispro-
portionate and exceed the Commission’s competences under
                                                                          Challenged        Decision    Refusal of registration by the
Article 8(4) of the Merger Control Regulation.
                                                                          before the Board of           Examiner.
                                                                          Appeal:
The applicant finally claims that the Commission has failed to
respect the applicant’s procedural rights, in that the Com-               Grounds submitted:            Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
mission did not respect the applicant’s right to be heard and                                           and (c) of Regulation No 40/94.
relied on information not provided to the applicant.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on
    the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395 of
    30.12.1989 p. 1; text republished in OJ L 257 of 21.9.1990,
    p. 13).
                                                                          Action brought on 28 March 2002 by Klausner Nordic
                                                                          Timber GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
Action brought on 20 March 2002 by Check Point
Software Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in                                           (Case T-91/02)
                       the Internal Market
                                                                                (2002/C 156/56)
                          (Case T-89/02)
                         (2002/C 156/55)                                                    (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              European Communities on 28 March 2002 by Klausner Nordic
European Communities on 20 March 2002 by Check Point                      Timber GmbH & Co. KG, Wismar (Germany), represented by
Software Limited, represented by Mr Graham Farrington of                  D.O. Reich, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Farrington & Co Solicitors, Reading (United Kingdom).
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Decision of the defendant’s First Board of
                                                                          —     annul the Commission’s decision of 15 January 2002 on
      Appeal of 7 January 2002; and
                                                                                State aid granted by Germany to Klausner Nordic Timber
                                                                                GmbH & Co. KG;
—     order the defendant to remit the application to its
      Examination Division for re-examination of Community
      Trade Mark no. 1744168 (SECURECLIENT).                              —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 24 January 2002 in Case C-170/00: Republic of Finland v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Expenditure for 1996 and 1997 — Special premiums for bulls — Procedure to be followed by the Commission)

text:
6.4.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 84/25
      —     Commission Directive 98/51/EC of 9 July 1998 laying            D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola and M. Wathelet, Judges,
            down certain measures for implementing Council Directive       Advocate General: L.A. Geelhoed, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Princi-
            95/69/EC laying down the conditions and arrangements           pal Administrator, has given a judgment on 24 January 2002,
            for approving and registering certain establishments and       in which it:
            intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector, and
                                                                           1.    Dismisses the action;
      —     Commission Directive 98/67/EC of 7 September 1998
            amending Directives 80/511/EEC, 82/475/EEC,                    2.    Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.
            91/357/EEC and Council Directive 96/25/EC and
            repealing Directive 92/87/EEC,
                                                                           (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
      the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      those Directives.
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                                                                                15 January 2002
                                                                           in Case C-179/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Gerald Weidacher (as
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    administrator of the insolvent company Thakis Vertriebs-
                                                                           und Handels GmbH) v Bundesminister für Land- und
                                                                                Forstwirtschaft (1)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                           (Article 149 of the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and
                          24 January 2002                                  Sweden — Transitional measures — Surplus stocks —
                                                                           Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 3108/94 —
                                                                           Competence — Holder of the goods — Import charge
in Case C-170/00: Republic of Finland v Commission of                      applicable — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality —
                  the European Communities (1)                                                      Equal treatment)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Expenditure for                                                      (2002/C 84/40)
1996 and 1997 — Special premiums for bulls — Procedure
                to be followed by the Commission)                                             (Language of the case: German)
                            (2002/C 84/39)                                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: Finnish)
                                                                           In Case C-179/00: reference to the Court under Article 234
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     EC by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
                    in the European Court Reports)                         ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                           Gerald Weidacher (as administrator of the insolvent company
                                                                           Thakis Vertriebs- und Handels GmbH) and Bundesminister für
                                                                           Land- und Forstwirtschaft on the interpretation of
In Case C-170/00, Republic of Finland (Agents: T. Pynnä and                Article 149(1) of the Act of Accession of the Republic of
E. Bygglin) v Commission of the European Communities                       Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden
(Agents: M. Niejahr and I. Koskinen): Application for partial              and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European
annulment of Commission Decision 2000/216/EC of 1 March                    Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1,
2000 excluding from Community financing certain expendi-                   p. 1) and on the validity and interpretation of Commission
ture incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee                     Regulation (EC) No 3108/94 of 19 December 1994 on
Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee                transitional measures to be adopted on account of the
Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000 L 67, p. 37), in so far as it excludes               accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden in respect of trade in
from Community financing the sum of FIM 7 270 885,76                       agricultural products (OJ 1994 L 328, p. 42),the Court (First
incurred in the applicant Member State on advance payment                  Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
of special premiums for bulls, for the 1996 and 1997                       L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate
marketing years, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                   General: J. Mischo, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment
P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr,               on 15 January 2002, in which it has ruled:


title: Removal from the register of T-201/97

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 7/29
         Removal from the register of T-201/97 (1)                 Communities ordered the removal from the register of
                          (98/C 7/74)                              Case T-226/97: GueÂrin Automobiles v. Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities.
               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 318, 18. 10. 1997.
By order of 13 November 1997, the President of the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case T-201/97: Manuel Francisco Caballero
Montoya v. Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 252, 16. 8. 1997.                                                  Removal from the register of T-227/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/76)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   By order of 6 November 1997, the President of the Second
         Removal from the register of T-226/97 (1)
                                                                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                          (98/C 7/75)                              Communities ordered the removal from the register of
                (Language of the case: French)                     Case T-227/97: Christian Marion v. Economic and Social
                                                                   Committee.
By order of 5 November 1997, the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             (1) OJ C 331, 1. 11. 1997.


title: Case T-413/03: Action brought on 15 December 2003 by Shandong Reipu Biochemicals Co. Ltd. against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 59/24                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           6.3.2004
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Finally, the applicant complains that owing to the Com-
                                                                           mission’s lack of activity in the first stage of the procedure, the
                                                                           length of the procedure was unreasonable within the meaning
                                                                           of Article 6(1) ECHR and complains that the order to desist is
By Decision K(2003) 3426 of 1 October 2003 the Commission                  unlawful because the relevant business has been sold in the
found that the applicant and four other undertakings had                   meantime.
infringed Article 81(1) EC by virtue of their participation in a
complex, single and continuing agreement and in concerted
practices in the sorbate sector, through which they agreed
inter alia target prices. A fine of EUR 99 million was imposed
on the applicant.
The applicant challenges the decision and claims that the
Commission infringed the principle of good administration by
unlawfully giving preferential treatment to another undertak-              Action brought on 15 December 2003 by Shandong
ing in the administrative procedure. Both undertakings cooper-             Reipu Biochemicals Co. Ltd. against the Council of the
ated with the Commission at the end of 1998 and the applicant                                      European Union
claims that the other undertaking has been given an unlawful
advantage.
                                                                                (Case T-413/03)
The applicant complains that there were irregularities in the
conduct of the procedure at that time and also that despite its                                     (2004/C 59/40)
requests the Commission has refused to grant it access to
Commission documents. The Commission has already allowed
access to some internal documents in the context of general                                   (Language of the case: English)
inspection of documents and it can therefore no longer rely
on general confidentiality of internal documents connected
therewith. Furthermore, a complete version of the decision, or
a version which is sufficiently comprehensible, has not been
supplied to the applicant, information in the first part of the            An action against the Council of the European Union was
decision having been blanked out without justification, thus               brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
making it impossible inter alia to comprehend how the fines                Communities on 15 December 2003 by Shandong Reipu
were calculated.                                                           Biochemicals Co. Ltd., Shandong, (People’s Republic of China),
                                                                           represented by O. Prost, lawyer.
Moreover, the applicant claims that there were errors of
assessment and of law in connection with the fixing of the                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
fine. It complains that the basic amount is disproportionate
because it has not been treated in the same way as other                   —     annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1656/
participants in the procedure. It also complains that the                        2003 of 11 September 2003 imposing a definitive anti-
Commission wrongly inferred that its actions had detrimental                     dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional
consequences and that ‘senior management’ participated in the                    duty imposed on imports of para-cresol originating in
cartel. The applicant submits that the basic amounts of the                      the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2003 L 234, p. 1) as
fine calculated according to groups are wrong because, in                        long as it imposes a 12,3 % duty on imports of products
particular, the additional cartel activities of the Japanese                     manufactured by the applicant;
manufacturers have not been taken into account. The applicant
also challenges, on the merits, the further additional fine of
30 % for its alleged position as ‘ringleader’ and also the further         —     ask the Council to pay the costs.
addition of 50 % for recidivism. With regard to appraisal of its
cooperation, the applicant complains that the Commission
wrongly failed to classify it as the first cooperating undertaking.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Moreover, the applicant complains that a previous penalty
imposed in the United States in regard to the same matter was
not taken into account and relies in that regard on the principle          The applicant is established in the People’s Republic of China
of ne bis in idem which also applies in relationships with non-            and produces and exports para-cresol to the European Union.
member countries. Although that principle does not preclude                The applicant contests Regulation (EC) No 1656/2003 which
further proceedings, it requires prior penalties to be taken into          imposes a definitive duty on imports of para-cresol, originating
account.                                                                   in the People’s Republic of China.
 ---pagebreak--- 6.3.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 59/25
The applicant submits that the Council failed to determine the            —     annul the implied decision to reject the applicant’s
normal value in an appropriate and not unreasonable manner                      complaint submitted on 27 May 2003 in accordance
within the meaning of Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 384/                   with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations and seeking
96 (1), as modified, and in conformity with its duty of due care.               the annulment of the contested decision;
The Commission, who initiated an anti-dumping procedure
under Article 5 of the Regulation, should not have ignored the            —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of
anti-dumping rule according to which costs of by-products                       EUR 20 000 assessed on an equitable basis, subject to
should not be taken into account, but instead should be                         increase or decrease in the course of the proceedings, in
deducted, in the normal value determination, in order to meet                   respect of damages for non-material harm and harm to
the need for a normal value determined in an appropriate and                    his career, on the basis both of substantial irregularities
not unreasonable manner. According to the applicant, the                        and of significant delay in the writing of the 2001 report
Commission was aware of the difference between the costs of                     in a particularly distressing period for the applicant;
production related to the production of para-cresol, on the
one hand, and the costs of production related specifically to             —     order the defendant to pay the costs in accordance with
the by-products (sodium sulfite and mixed phenol), on the                       Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
other hand. By extending the scope of the investigation to the                  First Instance.
two by-products and by taking into account the by-products
in the normal value determination, the Commission violated
the duty of due diligence.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Council failed to
respect the duty of good administration and that it violated              The applicant claims, firstly, a breach of Articles 26 and 43 of
Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 by failing to calculate            the Staff Regulations, of the general provisions for giving effect
a normal value for the like product only.                                 to Article 43 as adopted by the Bureau of the European
                                                                          Parliament on 8 March 1999 and of the instructions relating
                                                                          to the procedure for the writing of staff reports.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22.12.1995 on protection
    against dumped imports from countries not members of the
    European Community (OJ L 56 of 6.3.1996, p. 1).                       He also pleads misuse of powers and infringement of general
                                                                          principles of law, such as respect for the rights of the defence,
                                                                          the principle of good administration, the principle of the
                                                                          protection of legitimate expectations and the duty to have
                                                                          regard for the welfare of officials, the principle of equal
                                                                          treatment and those general principles requiring the AIPN to
                                                                          take a decision only on the basis of legally permissible grounds,
                                                                          namely those which are pertinent and not tainted by a manifest
                                                                          error of assessment, fact or law.
Action brought on 19 December 2003 by Angel Angelidis
              against the European Parliament
                         (Case T-416/03)
                          (2004/C 59/41)
                                                                          Action brought on 22 December 2003 by Fédération
                                                                          Internationale des Maisons de l’Europe (FIME) against the
                   (Language of the case: French)                                  Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-417/03)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                             (2004/C 59/42)
on 19 December 2003 by Angel Angelidis, resident in
Luxembourg, represented by Eric Boigelot, lawyer.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     annul the decision of the Secretary General of the                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      European Parliament taken on 4 March 2003 definitively              European Communities on 22 December 2003 by Fédération
      adopting the applicant’s staff report for 2001;                     Internationale des Maisons de l’Europe, established in Saar-
                                                                          brücken (Germany), represented by Pierre Soler-Couteaux,
—     annul that staff report for 2001;                                   lawyer.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 143, 11.6.2005

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/34

         (2005/C 155/63)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 143, 11.6.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 132, 28.5.2005

      OJ C 115, 14.5.2005

      OJ C 106, 30.4.2005

      OJ C 93, 16.4.2005

      OJ C 82, 2.4.2005

      OJ C 69, 19.3.2005

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Action brought on 17 November 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-387/97)

text:
C 113/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11.4.98
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                      (Fourth Chamber)
                     of 15 January 1998                              Ð declare that, by not taking the necessary measures to
                                                                          comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in
in Case C-403/95 P: Dieter Obst v. Commission of the                      Case C-45/91 Commission v. Greece and, in particular,
                  European Communities (1)                                by not having yet drawn up and implemented the
                                                                          plans and programmes needed for the disposal of
(Appeal Ð Official Ð Recruitment procedure Ð Article 45
                                                                          waste and of toxic waste in the area of Chania so that
of the Staff Regulations Ð Statement of reasons Ð
                                                                          human health is not endangered and the environment
Compensation for damage Ð Appeal clearly inadmissible
                                                                          is not harmed, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
                        and unfounded)
                                                                          fulfil its obligations under Article 171 of the Treaty,
                         (98/C 113/13)
                                                                     Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                    In its judgment of 7 April 1992 in Case C-45/91
                                                                     Commission v. Greece [1992] ECR I-2509, the Court of
                                                                     Justice found that the Hellenic Republic had failed to fulfil
In Case C-403/95 P: Dieter Obst, an official of the                  its obligations under Articles 4 and 6 of Council Directive
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                  75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1) and Articles 5
Everberg, Belgium, represented by Lothar Mahlberg,                   and 12 of Council Directive 78/319/EEC of 20 March
Rechtsanwalt, Bonn, with an address for service c/o                  1978 on toxic and dangerous waste (2).
Marianne Moritz, 25a rue de Schönfels, Bridel,
Luxembourg Ð appeal against the judgment of the Court
of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 October 1995 in             The Commission stated in its reasoned opinion of 6 August
Case T-562/93 Obst v. Commission [1995] ECR-SC II-                   1996 that, four years after delivery of that judgment, the
737, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other              Hellenic Republic had not taken the necessary measures to
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the                    comply with it. The Commission points out that, in
European Communities (Agent: Julian Currall, assisted by             accordance with the Court's case-law (see Case 169/87
Bertrand Wägenbaur) Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber),                    Commission v. France [1988] ECR 4093 and Case 375/89
composed of H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,                  Commission v. Belgium [1991] ECR I-383), the process of
J. L. Murray and K. M. Ioannou (Rapporteur), Judges;                 complying with a judgment of the Court which establishes
M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has              that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations
given an order the operative part of which is as follows:            must be initiated at once and be completed as soon as
                                                                     possible. It thus cannot be disputed that the Hellenic
                                                                     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to
1. the appeal is dismissed;                                          Article 171 of the Treaty. In addition, the Commission
                                                                     claims pursuant to Article 171(2) of the Treaty that the
                                                                     Court should impose on the Hellenic Republic a penalty
2. the appellant shall pay the costs.
                                                                     payment of ECU 24 600 per day of default in respect of
                                                                     the failure to comply with the judgment of the Court.
(1) OJ C 64, 2.3.1996, p. 8.
                                                                     (1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
                                                                     (2) OJ L 84, 31.3.1978, p. 43.
Action brought on 17 November 1997 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                             Republic                                Appeal brought on 7 January 1998 by Henri de Compte
                       (Case C-387/97)                               against the judgment delivered on 5 November 1997 by
                                                                     the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                         (98/C 113/14)                               European Communities in Case T-26/89 (125) Henri de
                                                                                Compte v. European Parliament
                                                                                (Case C-2/98 P)
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                                        (98/C 113/15)
on 17 November 1997 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Maria Kontou-
Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for service           An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,              the European Communities on 7 January 1998 by Henri
also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                 de Compte, represented by Henri Ferretti, of the