title: Case C-330/00 P: Appeal brought on 11 September 2000 by Alsace International Car Service (AICS) against the judgment delivered on 6 July 2000 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-139/99 between Alsace International Car Service and the European Parliament

text:
25.11.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 335/31
Action brought on 8 September 2000 by the Kingdom of                    —     Error by the Commission in the dates used in calculating
Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-                         the financial adjustment.
                                ties
                                                                        —     Failure to state the reasons on which the decision is
                                                                              based.
                         (Case C-329/00)
                                                                        (1) OJ L 61 of 10.3.1999, p. 37.
                         (2000/C 335/54)
                                                                        (2) OJ, English Special Edition 1970(I), p. 218.
                                                                        (3) OJ L 125 of 8.6.1995, p. 1.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 8 September 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain,
represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, Abogado del Estado,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish
Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard E. Servais.
                                                                        Appeal brought on 11 September 2000 by Alsace Inter-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             national Car Service (AICS) against the judgment deliver-
                                                                        ed on 6 July 2000 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of
                                                                        First Instance of the European Communities in Case
1.    Annul the Commission decision of 5 July 2000 excluding            T-139/99 between Alsace International Car Service and
      from Community financing certain expenditure incurred                                 the European Parliament
      by the Member States chargeable to the Guarantee Section
      of the EAGGF, in so far as it refers to compensatory aid
      for bananas in Spain, and                                                                  (Case C-330/00 P)
                                                                                (2000/C 335/55)
2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 July 2000 by
                                                                        the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in Case T-139/99 between Alsace
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         International Car Service and the European Parliament was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties on 11 September 2000 by Alsace International Car Service,
—     Error by the Commission in including the expenses                 represented by Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an
      incurred in the EAGGF year 1995 and breach of the                 address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Pierrot
      principles of the protection of legitimate expectations           Schiltz, 4 Rue Béatrix de Bourbon.
      and of legal certainty. The expenses incurred by Spain for
      the EAGGF year 1995 were cleared at the proper
      time through Commission Decision 1999/187/EC (1). The             The appellant claims that the Court should:
      separate payments did not include the payments made in
      respect of bananas (marketing year 1995) which must,              —     annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 July
      therefore, be considered to have been cleared by common                 2000;
      consent. Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 (2),
      which authorises the Commission to refuse financing for
      expenditure incurred within the 24 months preceding the           —     should the state of the proceedings so permit, rule upon
      date on which it communicates in writing the results of                 the application for annulment of the decision of 7 April
      its checks to the Member States concerned, was adopted                  1999 to reject AICS’s tender and hence also of the award
      by Council Regulation (EC) No 1287/95 (3), and is appli-                of the contract to the Cooperative Taxi 13, and upon
      cable only as from 16 October 1995 (EAGGF year 1996),                   the application for compensation of FRF 2 190 000,
      in accordance with Article 2(1) of Regulation 1287/95,                  reserving the right to perfect the ruling on the same basis
      and is not, therefore, applicable to payments made in the               on the day of delivery of judgment;
      financial year 1995. Moreover, the document which was
      the first communication to Spain of the result of the             —     order the Parliament to pay the costs.
      check made in the banana sector is dated 8 July 1997; the
      financial adjustments that might follow therefrom in
      accordance with Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70
      could not go back any earlier than 8 July 1995, when a            Pleas in law and main arguments
      large part of the expenditure for 1995 in respect of that
      year’s harvest had already been incurred.                         —     Manifest error of assessment in fact and in law:
 ---pagebreak--- C 335/32              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.11.2000
     The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance,         (a)   if so, does Article 73 in conjunction with Article 75 of
     which does not have to interpret French law but only to                 Regulation No 1408/71, having regard also to Article 10a
     apply it in appropriate cases, committed an obvious error               and to the fact that the Laki lasten kotihoidon ja yksityisen
     in holding that the Parliament’s argument that it could                 hoidon tuesta is not mentioned in Annex IIa of the
     negotiate with self-employed taxi drivers without causing               regulation, impose an obligation to pay home childcare
     them to infringe French legislation was ‘credible’. The                 allowance in respect of a child in the family of an
     Court of First Instance had to find that the Parliament                 employee posted temporarily to another Member State,
     failed to take any steps with the French authorities                    even in a case where the condition concerning actual
     to obtain information, claiming that it was for those                   residence which is a condition for receipt of the benefit
     authorities to approach the Parliament and for the self-                under national legislation is not satisfied, as a conse-
     employed taxi drivers to comply with the legislation in                 quence of which the choice referred to in the law between
     the performance of the contract, without concerning                     a day-care place organised by the local authority and
     itself with the possibility that the call for tenders might             home child-care allowance is not possible to make or has
     have an effect in breach of the legislation.                            not in fact been made;
—    Infringement of essential procedural requirements (insuf-         (b) if not, does Community law impose an obligation on
     ficient statement of reasons).                                          another ground to pay home child-care allowance in
—    Error in assessing the plea in law claiming discrimination.             another Member State in the situation described in
                                                                             point (a)?
—    After the revelations in the defence, AICS was justified in
     requesting the Court of First Instance to hold that the
     condition appearing in the notice concerning three years’         (1) Council Regulation No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the appli-
     business had been infringed, and the plea in law raised on            cation of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-
                                                                           employed persons and to members of their families moving
     that point by AICS should have been accepted.                         within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971, p. 416).
—    Since it has been shown that the Parliament established
     an unlawful system of working to the benefit of self-
     employed taxi drivers and to the detriment of AICS
     carrying on the business at a large discount enabling it to
     submit its offer, the conditions for holding the institution
     liable and awarding compensation to a private person
     suffering loss are met.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
                                                                       Gerichtshof of the Republic of Austria by order of that
                                                                       court of 26 January 2000 in the case of Republic of
                                                                                Austria against Martin Huber
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tarkastuslau-
takunta by order of that tribunal of 31 May 2000 in the                                         (Case C-336/00)
                  case of Päivikki Maaheimo
                                                                                (2000/C 335/57)
                        (Case C-333/00)
                        (2000/C 335/56)                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 (Supreme Court) of the Republic of Austria of 26 January
European Communities by an order of the Tarkastuslautakunta            2000, received at the Court Registry on 14 September 2000,
(Social Security Review Tribunal), Finland, of 31 May 2000,            for a preliminary ruling in the case of Republic of Austria
which was received at the Court Registry on 11 September               against Martin Huber on the following questions:
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Päivikki Maaheimo
on the following questions:                                            1.    Was Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June
                                                                             1992 on agricultural production methods compatible
Does home child-care allowance under the Laki lasten kotihoi-                with the requirements of the protection of the environ-
don ja yksityisen hoidon tuesta (Law on home child-care                      ment and the maintenance of the countryside (OJ 1992
allowance and private child-care allowance, 1128/1996) fall                  L 215, p. 85) validly adopted?
within the material scope of Community law as a family
benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(h) of Council               2.    Does a decision on the approval of a programme under
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the appli-                    Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of
cation of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-              30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods com-
employed persons and to members of their families moving                     patible with the requirements of the protection of the
within the Community (1), as amended and updated by Council                  environment and the maintenance of the countryside also
Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 and amended                       encompass the content of the programmes submitted by
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of 30 October 1989;                   the Member States for approval?


title: Judgment of the court of first instance (second chamber) of 28 January 2004 in Case T-180/01: Euragri Srl v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/39

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (SECOND CHAMBER)

   of 28 January 2004
   in Case T-180/01: Euragri Srl v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (EAGGF - Withdrawal of financial assistance - Articles 24 and 25 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88)
   (2004/C 94/113)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-180/01: Euragri Srl, established at Monte Vidon Combatte (Italy), represented by W. Massucci, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially L. Visaggio and M. Moretto and subsequently C. Cattabriga and M. Moretto) — application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2001) 1274 of 6 June 2001 withdrawing the assistance granted to Euragri Srl by Commission Decision C (92) 3214 of 3 December 1992 concerning grant of a contribution from the EAGGF, Guidance Section, pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section (OJ 1988 L 374, p.25), in connection with Project No 92.IT.06.069 entitled ‘Pilot demonstration project for the use of new “Endovena” (intravenous) technology on fruit trees’ – the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 January 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismissed the application.

               2.

               Ordered the applicant to pay the costs, including those incurred in connection with the application for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ No C 275 of 29.9.01


title: Removal from the register of T-259/94

text:
No C 199/40          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 6 . 97
     27 February 1997, and in particular Article 2 thereof,        Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
     and                                                           Case T-259/94 : Michel Pouzol v. Court of Auditors of the
                                                                   European Communities .
— to order the Office to pay the costs of the action.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                (') OJ No C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994 .
The applicant, a member of the First Board of Appeal of
the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs ), contests the abovementioned
Decision of the President of the Office, adopted on
21 February 1997.                                                            Removal from the register of T-3 00/94 ( l )
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/93 )
The Decision concerns certain aspects of the organization
of the Boards of Appeal created pursuant to Article 130 of
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Council Regulation (EC ) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993
on the Community trademark.
                                                                   By order of 11 March 1997 the President of the Fifth
The applicant submits that the Decision, and in particular         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
its Article 2, should be annuled on the following grounds.         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                   Case T-300/94 : Henri Maurissen v. Court of Auditors of
Firstly, Article 2 of the Decision is contrary to                  the European Communities.
Articles 112 ( 1 ) and 131 ( 2 ) of the Regulation. It thus
infringes a rule relating to the application of the Treaty         O OJ No C 316, 12 . 11 . 1994 .
within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173
of the EC Treaty.
 Secondly, the Decision is unlawful because the President
 failed to consult two thirds of the members of the Boards
 of Appeal appointed by the Council of Ministers and
 because the Members who were consulted ( i.e. the                           Removal from the register of T-115/95 (')
 chairmen ) were given insufficient time to consider the                                        ( 97/C 199/94 )
 matter properly. That failure to engage in proper
 consultations amounts to an infringement of an essential                           (Language of the case: French)
 procedural requirement within the meaning of the second
 paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty.                         By order of 30 April 1997 the President of the Second
                                                                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
 Thirdly, the Decision does not contain an adequate                 Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
 statement of the reasons on which Article 2 is based .             Case T-115/95 : Michel Pouzol v. Court of Auditors of the
                                                                    European Communities .
 Fourthly, the President has no competence to adopt any
 Decision introducing a hierarchical relationship within the
 Boards of Appeal ( as he purports to do in Article 2 (2 ) of       (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
 the Decision ) or to subject the entire membership of the
 Boards of Appeal to the hierarchical authority of the Vice
 President for Legal Affairs and of the President himself.
 Article 2 is therefore void for lack of competence within
 the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the
 EC Treaty.                                                                    Removal from the register of T-8/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/95 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    By order of 28 April 1997 the President of the Second
           Removal from the register of T-259/94 (')
                                                                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                         ( 97/C 199/92                              Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                 (Language of the case: French)                      Case T-8/96 : Antonia Carparelli v. Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities.
  By order of 30 April 1997 the President of the Second
  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             (') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .


title: Case T-324/03: Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Heinrich Winter against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 275/52              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        15.11.2003
Community trade mark          Word mark ‘LA BARONNIE’ —                  —     annul the decision of the Commission not to include his
sought:                       Application No. 2 057 487 for                    name on the list of promoted officials published in AN
                              products in Class 33 (alcoholic                  No 2002-69 of 14 August 2002;
                              beverages, except beers).
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay him token damages of
Proprietor of mark or         The applicant.                                   EUR 1 for the damage suffered by him as a result of the
sign cited in the oppo-                                                        failure to draw up the staff report for the period 1997 to
sition proceedings:                                                            1999;
Mark or sign cited in         National word mark ‘BARONIA’               —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
opposition:                   for products covered by Class 33
                              (‘wines of all types’).
Decision of the Oppo-         Opposition refused.
sition Division:                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Decision of the Board of      Appeal dismissed.
Appeal:                                                                  In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement
                                                                         of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principle
Pleas in law:                 Incorrect        application      of       of equal treatment and non-discrimination and manifest error
                              Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)         of assessment.
                              No 40/94 (likelihood of con-
                              fusion).
                                                                         Action brought on 25 September 2003 by O2 (Germany)
                                                                         GmbH & Co. OHG against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Heinrich
Winter against Commission of the European Commu-
                              nities                                                             (Case T-328/03)
                        (Case T-324/03)                                                          (2003/C 275/88)
                       (2003/C 275/87)                                                      (Language of the case: English)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 25 September 2003 by O2 (Germ-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                any) GmbH & Co. OHG, Munich, Germany, represented by Mr
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               N. Green QC, Mr K. Bacon, Barrister, Mr B. Amory, lawyer and
European Communities on 15 September 2003 by Heinrich                    Ms Francesca Marchini Camia, lawyer.
Winter, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Sébasti-
en Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne
Marchal, lawyers.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     annul articles 2 and 3(a) of the Commission Decision of
                                                                               16 July 2003 in case COMP/38.369;
—     annul the decision of the Commission not to include his
      name on the list of officials deemed to be most deserving          —     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs;
      of promotion to Grade A 4 for the 2002 promotions
      procedure published in Administrative Notices (AN)                 —     make any such further order as the Court deems appro-
      No 2002-68 of 12 August 2002;                                            priate.


title: Case C-266/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, by judgment of 18 May 2001, in the case of Préservatrice Foncière T.I.A.R.D. Compagnie d'Assurances against the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Finance)

text:
29.9.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 275/5
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                       territory (Thuringia) which, under the direction of the
Nederlanden, by judgment of 18 May 2001, in the case of                       manager of the holding, has been produced from its cows
Préservatrice Foncière T.I.A.R.D. Compagnie d’Assuran-                        installed in leased facilities in the accession territory
ces against the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of                         (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern)?
                            Finance)
                        (Case C-266/01)                                 2.    Or is the milk quantity thus acquired to be imputed to
                                                                              the provisionally allocated reference quantity of the
                        (2001/C 275/08)                                       lessor farmer who is himself partly producing and the
                                                                              provisionally allocated milk reference quantity withdrawn
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        in favour of Thuringia where, as in this case, federal land
European Communities, by judgment of the Hoge Raad der                        borders divide the part of the holding to which the
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 18 May                      reference quantity was allocated from the part of the
2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 5 July                      holding in which the milk is produced and, in contradis-
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Préservatrice                   tinction to the situation in the Ballmann case, cited above,
Foncière T.I.A.R.D. Compagnie d’Assurances v the State of the                 the holding or part of the holding to which the milk
Netherlands (Ministry of Finance) on the following questions:                 reference quantity was provisionally allocated is maintai-
1.    Is a claim lodged by the State under a private-law contract             ned only, as it were, as the holding’s head office and
      of suretyship which it has concluded in fulfilment of a                 produces and delivers only a proportion of less than
      condition determined by it pursuant to Article 6(1) of the              5 % of the milk reference quantity (dairy herd/milk
      1975 TIR Convention, and therefore in exercise of its                   production)?
      public powers, to be regarded as a civil or commercial
      matter within the meaning of Article 1 of the Brussels            3.    Is it material to the reply to these questions that the
      Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of                       holding producing the milk was formerly in the territory
      Judgments in Civil and Commercial matters?                              of the GDR but that this territory was transferred to
                                                                              Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony) by state treaty between
2.    Must proceedings which are brought by the State and                     the two länder of the Federal Republic of Germany known
      which have as their subject-matter a private-law contract               as Niedersachsen and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern?
      of suretyship be regarded as a customs matter within the
      meaning of Article 1 of the Brussels Convention on
      Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil            (1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.
      and Commercial Matters, on the ground that pleas may              (2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 73.
      be put forward by the defendant which necessitate an              (3) ECR I-25 [1991].
      investigation into, and a ruling on, the existence and
      content of the customs debts to which that contract
      relates?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-                References for preliminary rulings by the Tribunale di
gericht Weimar by order of that court of 23 May 2001                    L’Aquila by orders of 20 June 2001 in the case of Flora
in the case of Agrargenossenschaft Alkersleben e.G. v                   Panepucci v Rina Iannarelli (Case C-269/01) and in that of
                      Freistaat Thüringen                                  Attilio Maria Cecchini v Mario Basile (Case C-270/01)
                                                                                (Cases C-269/01 and C-270/01)
                        (Case C-268/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 275/10)
                        (2001/C 275/09)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by orders of 20 June 2001 by the
European Communities by an order of the Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                        Tribunale di L’Aquila (District Court, L’Aquila), which were
(Administrative Court), Weimar, of 23 May 2001, which was
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 6 July 2001, for preliminary
received at the Court Registry on 6 July 2001, for a preliminary
                                                                        rulings in the cases of Flora Panepucci v Rina Iannarelli and
ruling in the case of Agrargenossenschaft Alkersleben e.G. v
                                                                        Attilio Maria Cecchini v Mario Basile on the following
Freistaat Thüringen on the following questions:
                                                                        questions:
1.    Is Article 9(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1)
      (amended by Regulation (EC) No 1256/99 (2)), or other             (1) Is the provision of binding minimum tariffs contrary to
      provisions concerning guaranteed quantities of milk, to                 free competition on the ground that it prevents the free
      be interpreted, by reference to Case C-341/89                           fixing of fees for a lawyer’s services, as provided for under
      Ballmann (3), as meaning that in the case of a holding or               Article 81(1)(a) EC, and does it also have the effect
      part of a holding in the territory of the former GDR a                  of reinforcing the compartmentalisation of markets at
      milk quantity is also to be imputed to the reference                    national level, thereby hindering the economic integration
      quantity provisionally allocated to it in the accession                 intended by the Treaty?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 7 May 1998 in Case C-124/96: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain, supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC - Exemption of certain supplies of services closely linked to sport or physical education - Unjustified restrictions)

text:
C 234/2                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.7.98
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                               3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                         Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.
                        (Sixth Chamber)
                         of 7 May 1998                              (1) OJ C 158 of 1.6.1996.
in Case C-124/96: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Spain, supported by United
     Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð Sixth
Council Directive 77/388/EEC Ð Exemption of certain
supplies of services closely linked to sport or physical
              education Ð Unjustified restrictions)                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 7 May 1998
                         (98/C 234/02)
                                                                    in Case C-401/96 P: Somaco SaÁrl v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                     (Appeals Ð Competition Ð No anti-competitive conduct
                                                                    in Martinique by reason of irresistible pressure on the part
                                                                        of the local administration Ð Distortion of evidence)
                                                                                (98/C 234/03)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case C-124/96: Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Enrico Traversa and Francisco
Enrique GonzaÂlez Díaz) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Luis               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
PeÂrez de Ayala Becerril), supported by United Kingdom of                     published in the European Court Reports)
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: Lindsey
Nicoll, assisted by Sarah Moore) Ð application for a
declaration that, by providing that VAT exemption for
services closely linked to sport or physical education              In Case C-401/96 P: Somaco SaÁrl, having its registered
applied only to private establishments whose membership             office in Fort-de-France (France), represented by Jean-
fees did not exceed a specified amount, the Kingdom of              Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
Spain infringed Article 13(A)(1)(m) of the Sixth Council            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz,
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                          4 Rue BeÂatrix de Bourbon, against the judgment of the
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating             Court of First Instance of the European Communities
to turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:               (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 18 September
uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1)           1996 in Case T-387/94 Asia Motor France v Commission
Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H.                        [1996] ECR II-961, seeking to have that judgment set
Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini,                 aside, the other party to the proceedings being the
P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray and K. M.               Commission of the European Communities, represented
Ioannou, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; R.                by Berend Jan Drijber, assisted by HerveÂ Lehman, the
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 May 1998, in            Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
which it:                                                           (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,
                                                                    D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges;
                                                                    G. Tesauro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                    given a judgment on 7 May 1998, in which it:
1. Declares that, by providing that the exemption from
     value added tax in respect of supplies closely linked to
     sport or physical education applies only to private
     establishments whose membership fees do not exceed             1. Dismisses the appeal;
     a certain amount, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to
     fulfil its obligations under Article 13(A)(1)(m) of the
     Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977
     on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                 2. Orders Somaco SaÁrl to pay the costs.
     States relating to turnover taxes Ð Common system of
     value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.                  (1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.
2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.


title: Case T-114/99: Action brought on 11 May 1999 by CSR Pampryl against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.8.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 226/35
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants in the present case challenge Article 1(7)(b),             — annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 378/1999 of
second indent, of Council Regulation (EC) No 323/1999 of                       19 February 1999 in so far as the name Pays d’Auge/Pays
8th February 1999, amending Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89                        d’Auge-Cambremer registers it;
on a code of conduct for computer reservations systems
(CRSs) (1). This article inserts a point (v) in Article 6(1)(b) of        — order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs.
the amended regulation, according to which group of airlines
and/or subscribers is entitled to purchase data for common
processing.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants submit that, on the premise that it imposes
on operators of CRSs an obligation to supply Marketing                    Since 1998 the applicant has manufactured and sold sider, in
Information Data transfer (MIDT) only once, to group. of                  particular under the names ‘La Cidraie — grand cru du Pays
airlines having a common interest in the common processing                d’Auge’ and ‘Jacques Toy — grand cru cidre du Pays d’Auge’.
of those data, article 6(1)(b) infringes the principle of pro-            The applicant objects to the contested regulation or the ground
portionality. That is so for two reasons:                                 that its application would prohibit the applicant from selling
                                                                          its cider under the name ‘Pays d’Auge’.
— First, if that provision is to be construed as permitting
     airlines to form groups to purchase MIDT, irrespective of
     the size of the airlines concerned or the number of                  The pleas in law made against the regulation in issue are in
     participants in the group, the measure is excessive and is           two parts:
     not necessary to achieve the aim identified during the
     process leading to the adoption of Article 6(1)(b), namely
                                                                          — as to the form, the procedure which led to the adoption of
     to enable travel agents to join together in groups to
                                                                               Regulation No 378/1999 is invalidated by the fact that the
     purchase MIDT.
                                                                               applicant’s opposition to registration of the name ‘Pays
                                                                               d’Auge’ was not forwarded to the Commission;
— Second, the measure is disproportionate by reason of the
     very serious financial implications it has for CRS operators
     engaged in supplying MIDT at the date of the contested               — as to the merits, the regulation which registers the name
     decision.                                                                 ‘Pays d’Auge’ in respect of sider fails to comply with the
                                                                               conditions set out in Article 2 of Regulation No 2081/92
                                                                               in that it applies to a product which has no specific features
The applicants also submit that the obligation to state the                    as regards its recommended method of manufacture and is
reasons on which a measure is based has been infringed.                        produced in such a way as to offer no guarantee to the
                                                                               consumer.
(1) OJ L 40 of 13.2.1999, p. 1.
                                                                          Action brought on 12 May 1999 by Société Système
Action brought on 11 May 1999 by CSR Pampryl against                      Européen Promotion ‘SEP’ against Commission of the
       the Commission of the European Communities                                               European Communities
                         (Case T-114/99)                                                             (Case T-115/99)
                         (1999/C 226/62)                                                            (1999/C 226/63)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                             (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 May 1995 by CSR Pampryl, a                     European Communities on 12 May 1999 by Société Système
company whose registered office is in La Courneuve, France,               Européen Promotion ‘SEP’, whose registered office is at Saint
represented by Dominique Couturier-Heller, of the Paris Bar,              Vit (France) represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of              Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.                                  Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Béatrix de Bourbon.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 November 2000 in Case T-210/98: E v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Dependent child allowance — Double allowance for child affected by mental or physical handicap — Suspension — Recovery of undue payment)

text:
C 95/10                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24.3.2001
1.    dismisses the application;                                            3.    Orders the Commission to repay to the applicant the sums
                                                                                recovered from her pension, amounting to LUF 181 446;
2.    orders each of the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                            4.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
(1) OJ No C 358 of 21.11.98.                                                5.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ No C 86, 27.3.1999.
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 8 November 2000
                                                                                of 26 October 2000
in Case T-210/98: E v Commission of the European
                          Communities (1)
                                                                            in Joined Cases T-83/99, T-84/99 and T-85/99: Carlo Ripa
                                                                                di Meana and Others v European Parliament (1)
(Officials — Dependent child allowance — Double allow-
ance for child affected by mental or physical handicap —
          Suspension — Recovery of undue payment)                           (Members of the European Parliament — Provisional retire-
                                                                            ment pension scheme — Time-limit for submitting request
                                                                                — Knowledge acquired — Admissibility)
                          (2001/C 95/17)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/18)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-210/98: E, a former official of the European
Communities, residing in Luxembourg, represented initially by
                                                                            In Joined Cases T-83/99, T-84/99 and T-85/99: Carlo Ripa di
C. Revoldini and subsequently by J. Choucroun, both of the
                                                                            Meana, former Italian Member of the European Parliament,
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                            residing in Montecastello di Vibio (Italy), Leoluca Orlando,
at the Chambers of the latter, 84 Grand-Rue, against the
                                                                            former Italian Member of the European Parliament, residing in
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berar-
                                                                            Palermo (Italy), Gastone Parigi, former Italian Member of the
dis-Kayser, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and B. Wägenbaur) —
                                                                            European Parliament, residing in Pordenone (Italy), represented
applications for the annulment, first, of a Commission decision
                                                                            by V. Viscardini Donà, assisted by G. Donà, of the Padua Bar,
of 14 July 1998 suspending payment of a double dependent
                                                                            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
child allowance and retrospectively withdrawing the benefit of
                                                                            E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against European Parlia-
the latter for the period from 1 January 1997 until 14 July
                                                                            ment (Agents: A. Caiola, G. Ricci and F. Capelli) — application
1998, and, second, of a Commission decision of 22 July 1998
                                                                            for annulment of the decisions of the European Parliament of
recovering from the applicant’s retirement pension sums
                                                                            4 February 1999 rejecting the requests submitted by Mr Ripa
totalling LUF 181 446 allegedly paid unduly by way of that
                                                                            di Meana, Mr Orlando and Mr Parigi, seeking to obtain
allowance, and for an order that the Commission repay to the
                                                                            retroactive application of the provisional retirement pension
applicant the amounts withheld from her pension — the Court
                                                                            scheme referred to in Annex III to the Rules Governing the
of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung,
                                                                            Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members of the
President of the Chamber, A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
                                                                            European Parliament — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
                                                                            Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos
a judgment on 8 November 2000, in which it:
                                                                            and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig, administrator, for the
                                                                            Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 October 2000, in which it:
1.    Annuls the Commission decision of 14 July 1998 in so far as
      it withdraws the grant of the double allowance for a dependent        1.    annuls the decisions of the European Parliament of 4 February
      child provided for in Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations of             1999 No 300762 and No 300763 rejecting the requests
      Officials of the European Communities for the period from                   submitted by Mr Ripa di Meana and Mr Orlando for the
      1 January 1997 until 14 July 1998;                                          provisional pension scheme referred to in Annex III to the
                                                                                Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to
2.    Annuls the Commission decision of 23 July 1998, recovering                  Members of the European Parliament to apply with retroactive
      the sum of LUF 181 446;                                                     effect;


5.4.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 83/17
        Removal from the register of Case C-444/01 ( 1)                from the register of Case C-215/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling by the Sozialgericht Stuttgart): Karin Müller v Postbeam-
                         (2003/C 83/35)                                tenkrankenkasse.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.
By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-444/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Stadt Villingen-
Schwenningen v Ophilia Akosua Owusu.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-241/02 P ( 1)
( 1) OJ C 84 of 06.4.2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 83/39)
                                                                       By order of 6 January 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
        Removal from the register of Case   C-61/02 (1)
                                                                       from the register of Case C-241/02 P: International and
                                                                       European Public Services Organisation (IPSO) v European
                         (2003/C 83/36)
                                                                       Central Bank.
By order of 19 December 2002 the President of the Court of             (1 ) OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-61/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria.
( 1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-337/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/40)
        Removal from the register of Case C-191/02 ( 1)                By order of 4 February 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                         (2003/C 83/37)                                from the register of Case C-337/02: Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities v Italian Republic.
By order of 16 December 2002 the President of the Court of             (1 ) OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-191/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
( 1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-368/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/41)
        Removal from the register of Case C-215/02 ( 1)
                                                                       By order of 23 January 2003 the President of the Court of
                         (2003/C 83/38)                                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-368/02: Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
By order of 16 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                (1 ) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 May 2000 in Case T-46/97: SIC — Sociedade Independente de Comunicação SA v Commission of the European Communities (Financing of public television channels — Complaint — State Aid — Failure to open the procedure under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(2) EC) — Action for annulment)

text:
C 176/20                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           24.6.2000
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two
                                                                                thirds of the costs incurred by the applicant, excluding those
                                                                                incurred as a result of the interventions of RTP — Radiotelevisão
                          of 10 May 2000                                         Portuguesa SA and the Portuguese Republic;
                                                                            4. Orders the Portuguese Republic and RTP — Radiotelevisão
in Case T-46/97: SIC — Sociedade Independente de                                 Portuguesa SA to bear their own costs and jointly and severally
Comunicação SA v Commission of the European Com-                                to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the applicant as a result
                              munities (1)                                       of their intervention;
                                                                            5. Orders the United Kingdom to bear its own costs.
(Financing of public television channels — Complaint —
State Aid — Failure to open the procedure under Article                     (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
93(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(2) EC) — Action for
                              annulment)
                          (2000/C 176/33)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                                of 13 April 2000
In Case T-46/97: SIC — Sociedade Independente de Comunica-
ção, SA, established in Estrada da Outorela, Portugal, represent-           in Case T-18/98: Peter Reichert v European Parliament (1)
ed by C. Botelho Moniz and P. Moura Pinheiro, of the Lisbon
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                       (Officials — Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations
Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-rue, v Commission of the                       — Expatriation allowance — Place in which main occupation
European Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and A. Alves Vieira),                                              is carried on)
supported by RTP — Radiotelevisão Portuguesa SA, established
in Lisbon, represented by M. Tinoco de Faria and I. Jalles, of                                          (2000/C 176/34)
the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Beghin and Feider, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel,
Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes, M.L. Duarte and                                       (Language of the case: German)
T. Ribeiro, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill), application for the annulment of:
(1) the Commission’s decision of 7 November 1996 concern-                   In Case T-18/98: Peter Reichert, a member of the temporary
ing a proceeding under Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now                     staff working for the Socialist Group within the European
Article 88 EC) on the financing of public television channels,              Parliament, represented by Dieter Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt,
notified to the applicant on 6 January 1997, and (2) the                    Sprockhövel (Germany), with an address for service in Luxem-
decision allegedly contained in a letter from the Commission                bourg at the Chambers of Decker, Braun & Wagner, P.O. Box
of 20 December 1996 concerning the complaint by the                         335, v European Parliament (Agents: Yannis Pantalis and
applicant against RTP-Radiotelevisão Portuguesa SA — the                   Evelyn Waldherr) — application for annulment of the Euro-
Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:                   pean Parliament’s decision of 21 October 1997 concerning
B. Vesterdorf, President, V. Tiili, A. Potocki, A.W.H. Meij and             the grant of the expatriation allowance provided for in Article
M. Vilaras, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar,            4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the
has given a judgment on 10 May 2000 in which it:                            European Communities — the Court of First Instance (Single
                                                                            Judge), composed of: P. Mengozzi, sitting as a single judge;
                                                                            J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it is directed         a judgment on 13 April 2000, in which it:
     against the Commission’s letter of 20 December 1996;
                                                                            1. Dismisses the application;
2. Annuls the Decision in so far as it relates to the measures by the
                                                                            2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
     Portuguese State in favour of RTP — Radiotelevisão Portuguesa
     SA consisting in grants by way of compensation, tax exemptions,
     payment facilities for use of the television broadcasting network      (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
     and the rescheduling of a debt arising from failure to pay social
     security contributions, together with non-recovery of interest for
     late payment;


title: Case C-409/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 15 July 2003 in the proceedings between SEPA Société d'Exportation de Produits Agricoles S.A. and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
C 275/38                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         15.11.2003
—    the possibility of giving notification of an order to leave                ple, the ordering of a specific inspection as to fitness
     the territory to citizens of the Union who have not                        for human consumption or a restriction to certain
     produced the documents necessary for the issue of a                        distribution channels?
     residence permit within the prescribed period.
                                                                          2.    Does the concept of ‘fair marketable quality’ in Article 13
     A Member State may refuse or terminate the right of                        of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 Nov-
     residence of a citizen of the Union only if the conditions                 ember 1987 require that the product to be exported be
     of this right are not or are no longer fulfilled. By contrast,             of average quality, and does it therefore disqualify from
     the fact that the administrative procedures for the grant                  the grant of an export refund a product of inferior quality,
     of the residence permit evidencing the right have not                      which, however, usually appears under the description of
     been complied with may not lead to a penalty such as                       the object of trade given in the refund application? Is that
     refusal to grant the right of residence or removal from                    also the case where the inferior quality has in no way
     the territory, which would effectively deny the actual                     affected the completion of the commercial transaction?
     right of residence conferred and guaranteed by the Treaty.
     The notification of an order to leave the territory may be
     based not on exclusively administrative grounds, but on              (1) OJ L 351, p. 1.
     facts leading to the conclusion that the person concerned
     does not fulfil the conditions set for his right of residence
     by one of the relevant directives.
(1) OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26.
(2) OJ English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 485.
(3) OJ 1973 L 172, p. 14.                                                 Action brought on 2 October 2003 by the Commission
(4) OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59.                                                         of the European Communities against Ireland
(5) OJ 1990 L 180, p. 28.
                                                                                (Case C-413/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/58)
                                                                          An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-                  Justice of the European Communities on 2 October 2003 by
of by order of that Court of 15 July 2003 in the                          the Commission of the European Communities, represented
proceedings between SEPA Société d’Exportation de                         by Mr Xavier Lewis, acting as agent, with an address for service
Produits Agricoles S.A. and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas                    in Luxembourg.
                         (Case C-409/03)                                  The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (2003/C 275/57)                                  1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                                the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release
                                                                                into the environment of genetically modified organisms
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (1), or by
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                                failing to notify such provisions to the Commission,
(Federal Finance Court) of 15 July 2003, received at the Court
                                                                                Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 34
Registry on 1 October 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                                of this Directive.
proceedings between SEPA Société d’Exportation de Produits
Agricoles S.A. and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the
following questions:                                                      2)    order Ireland to pay the costs.
1.   Does the concept of ‘fair marketable quality’ in Article 13
     of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1) of                     Pleas in law and main arguments
     27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules
     for the application of the system of export refunds on
     agricultural products require that the manufacture and               The period within which the directive had to be transposed
     distribution of the products in question be subject only             expired on 17 October 2002.
     to generally valid legal conditions as they apply to any
     product of that type, and does it consequently disqualify
     from the grant of an export refund a product to which                (1) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1.
     special restrictions apply, in particular as regards its
     production, treatment or distribution, such as, for exam-


title: Action brought on 18 August 1997 by 'E' against the European Parliament (Case T-239/97)

text:
1 . 11 97             I EN I                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 331 /21
     withdrawal of a            legal  measure     which     confers      Moreover, having made a report on the applicant's ability,
      individual rights .                                                 efficiency and conduct at the request of the members of
                                                                          the Joint Committee on Promotion, the applicant's
(') Case T-66/96 , Mellet v. Court of Justice ( OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 .       superior failed to put it in writing and submit it to him, to
     1996, p. 10 ).                                                       enable him to make observation and place it in his
                                                                          personal file .
                                                                          The applicant, who has suffered a state of anxiety and
                                                                          uncertainty for more than two years, has been deprived of
                                                                          an opportunity of having his candidature taken into
Action brought on 1 August 1997 by Christian Marion                       consideration, at the conclusion of a regular procedure,
          against the Economic and Social Committee                       for promotion to Grade C 4 . The assessor was obliged to
                          ( Case T-227/97)                                give reasons for his assessments, in order to allow the
                                                                          applicant to make observations and put forward pleas in
                            ( 97IC 331/43 )                               his defence .
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Finally, the applicant makes a damages claim for
                                                                          combined material and non-material damage .
An action against the Economic and Social Committee
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 August 1997 by Christian
Marion, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel
Louis, Thierry Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and Fran^oise
Parmentier, all of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson,
                                                                          Action brought on 18 August 1997 by 'E' against the
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.                                                                      European Parliament
                                                                                ( Case T-239/97)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /44
— annul        the    decision     definitively   establishing   the
      applicant's staff report for the period 1992—1994,                                  (Language of the case: French)
— order the defendant to pay the applicant FB 250 000
      compensation for combined material and non-material                 An action against the European Parliament was brought
      damage,                                                              before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities on 18 August 1997 by 'E', represented by
                                                                           Claudine Junion, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                   service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges
                                                                           Liolos, 6 Rue J. A. Muller.
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
 The applicant, an official in Grade C 5 , alleges
 infringement of Articles 26 , 43 and 45 of the Staff
 Regulations, of Articles 6 and 7 of Decision 1001 /81 A of                — annul the decision of the European Parliament of
 the Economic and Social Committee laying down general                         5 November 1996, appointing the applicant to Grade
 provisions for implementing the Staff regulations as                          B 5 , Step 4,
 regards the periodic staff reports of officials, of the
 principle of sound administration, the duty to state
 reasons and the rights of the defence, and, finally, that                 — annul the decision impliedly rejecting the applicant's
 there has been a manifest error of assessment .                               complaint of 11 February 1997,
 He maintains that the Economic and Social Committee
 was at fault in taking 28 months to draw up his staff                     — order the European Parliament to reclassify the
 report for the period 1992 to 1994. By reason of that                         applicant as from the date of his appointment and
 fault, the Joint Committee on Promotion 1996 did not                          reconstitute his career bracket accordingly,
 have available the up-to-date staff report on the
 applicant's ability, efficiency and conduct for the
 promotion year 1996 .                                                     — order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 331 /22          1 EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    1 . 11 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    — annul the defendant's decisions :
The applicant claims that there has been an infringement
of Article 46 of the Staff Regulations, the purpose of                  — of 31 October 1996, consisting of a note prepared
which is to ensure the greatest possible continuity in the                   by J. P. Contzen, Director-General of the Joint
development of an official 's career. In his submission, the                 Research Centre, Ispra, refusing, first, to allow the
remuneration for Grade B 5 , Step 4 is lower than that for                   applicant to apply to the appeal assessor on the
Grade C 3 , Step 8 . He will therefore continue to be                        ground that the matter had been finally concluded
remunerated as an official of Grade C 3 , Step 8 until                       by the decision of 30 November 1995 awarding
promoted to Grade B 4, which does not represent                              the applicant the sum of BFR 90 000 in respect of
continuity in the development of his remuneration.                           non-material damage resulting from the absence
                                                                             and/or delay in the drawing up of his staff reports
                                                                             and, second, refusing the promotion of the
                                                                             applicant to grade A4 sought in point 2 of his
Moreover, the applicant does not enjoy financial                             request of 28 August 1996,
advantages, like officials who are not in the last step in
their grade .
                                                                        — implicitly rejecting the applicant's complaint
                                                                             against those refusals, which was submitted on
                                                                             20 January 1997 and registered on that date,
When the applicant took up his duties in 1982, in Grade
C 4, he was awarded additional seniority of 48 months in
accordance with Article 42 of the Staff Regulations. An             — order the defendant to pay compensation of BFR
                                                                         1 000 000 for the combined material and non-material
official appointed at the same time as the applicant with
additional seniority of 24 months, who was promoted at                  damage suffered by him, the said sum to be increased
the same time and who had passed the same competition,                  or decreased as appropriate during the course of the
had been at Grade C 3, Step 7 before his appointment to                 proceedings, together with compensatory interest
Grade B. When the two were both appointed to Grade                      running from 28 August 1996 , the date of the
B 5 , that official received the same remuneration as the               applicant's request,
applicant, even though the latter had 24 months more
seniority.
                                                                    — in any event, order the Commission to pay all the
                                                                        costs .
Finally, the applicant requests his reclassification in the         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
light of the 'Alexopoulou' judgment.
                                                                    The applicant pleads, first, infringement of the Staff
                                                                    Regulations, in particular Articles 9 ( 5 ), 26 and 43
                                                                    thereof, and breach of general principles of law, including
                                                                    in particular the principle of equality, which requires the
                                                                    administration to have regard for the welfare and interests
                                                                    of officials, and the principle that all administrative
                                                                    decisions   must   be   based  on  a   lawful   and    relevant
Action brought on 19 August 1997 by Luc Verheyden
   against the Commission of the European Communities               statement of reasons. According to the applicant, the
                                                                    appointing authority was wrong to rely on the previous
                       ( Case T-240/97 )                            award of compensation for the absence and/or delay in the
                                                                    drawing up of a staff report as a ground for refusing to
                         ( 97/C 331/45 )                            allow the applicant to apply for revision of his staff report
                                                                    on appeal ( such revision being concerned with the
                                                                    contents of that report, which was drawn up after
                                                                    adoption of the decision awarding compensation), and in
               (Language of the case: French)                       so doing it infringed the rules and principles relied on in
                                                                    this plea .
An action against the Commission of the European                    The second plea alleges infringement of the second
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   paragraph of Article 25 and of Articles 44 and 45 of the
Instance of the European Communities on 19 August                   Staff Regulations and failure to observe general principles
1997 by Luc Verheyden, residing at Angera ( Italy),                 of law such as the principles of equality and of the
represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an          protection of legitimate expectations. The applicant
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                complains that the defendant infringed the rules and
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.                            principles referred to in this plea by refusing to promote


20.2.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 48/21
The reduced rate for medicaments reimbursable by the                       Removal from the register of Case C-84/97 (1)
social security was applicable on 1 January 1991 but does                                  (1999/C 48/36)
not comply with Community law.
                                                                    By order of 27 October 1998 the Court of Justice of the
Such a rate specifically for reimbursable medicaments,              European Communities has ordered the removal from the
whereas another rate is applicable to other medicaments,            register of Case C-84/97 (reference for a preliminary
is contrary to the principle of uniformity of the tax in            ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Torino):
Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive.                            Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Grafoplast
                                                                    SpA.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
That specific rate is not, as the French Government
contends, based on objective criteria but on the legal
status of the products in question. Medicaments
reimbursable by the social security are not intrinsically
different from other medicaments.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-305/96 (1)
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
                                                                                (1999/C 48/37)
                                                                    By order of 28 October 1998 the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities has ordered the removal from the
                                                                    register of Case C-305/96: United Kingdom and Northern
                                                                    Ireland v. Commission of the European Communities.
      Removal from the register of Case C-428/97 (1)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
                        (1999/C 48/34)
By order of 20 October 1998, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-428/97 (Reference for                 Removal from the register of Case C-332/97 (1)
a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Sarclad
                                                                                (1999/C 48/38)
International Ltd v. Bundesamt für Finanzen.
(1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.                                             By order of 28 October 1998, the President of the Court
                                                                    of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-332/97: Commission
                                                                    of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-178/96 (1)
                        (1999/C 48/35)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-367/97 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/39)
By order of 23 October 1998, the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                    By order of 28 October 1998, the President of the Court
Case C-178/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                    of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia):
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-367/97: Commission
Stefano Serbini v. Ministero del Commercio con l'Estero.
                                                                    of the European Communities v. Kingdom of the
                                                                    Netherlands.
(1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1997.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 November 1998 in Case T-91/96 (125): Council of the European Union v. Nicole Hankart (Officials - Action for revision - Decisive new fact - None - Inadmissible)

text:
19.12.98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 397/29
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           the LieÁge Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                    at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau, v
                    of 12 November 1998
                                                                    Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Julian
in Case T-91/96 (125): Council of the European Union v.             Currall and Bertrand Wägenbaur) Ð application,
                      Nicole Hankart (1)                            primarily, for annulment of the Commission's decision of
                                                                    24 May 1995 reviewing the applicant's classification in
(Officials Ð Action for revision Ð Decisive new fact Ð              step and classifying him, as at 1 June 1991, in grade A 7,
                    None Ð Inadmissible)                            step 2 and not grade A 7, step 3 Ð the Court of First
                                                                    Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: C. W. Bellamy,
                         (98/C 397/55)
                                                                    President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio
                                                                    GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                    judgment on 21 October 1998, in which it:
               (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-91/96 (125): Council of the European Union                1. Annuls the Commission's decision of 24 May 1995 in
(Agent: TheÂreÁse Blanchet) v. Nicole Hankart, an official of            so far as it classifies the applicant in grade A 7, step 2
the Commission of the European Communities, residing at                  as at 1 June 1991 and in grade A 7, step 3 as at
Rhode-Saint-GeneÁse (Belgium), represented initially by                  28 September 1993;
Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure, VeÂronique Leclercq
and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, and subsequently
by Messrs Louis and Demaseure alone, with an address                2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;
for service in Luxembourg at the Offices of Fiduciaire
Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange Ð application for
revision of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
17 February 1998 in Case T-91/96 Hankart v. Council                 3. Orders the Commission to pay all of the costs.
[1998] ECR-SC II-149 Ð the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos,
President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,           (1) OJ C 247, 24.8.1996.
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 November 1998, in
which it:
1. Dismisses the application for revision as inadmissible;
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2. Orders the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                                of 17 November 1998
(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.                                            in Case T-217/96: Lut Fabert-Goossens v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                    (Temporary staff Ð Selection procedure Ð Professional
                                                                           experience required Ð Classification in grade)
                                                                                (98/C 397/57)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 21 October 1998                                             (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-100/96: Miguel Vicente-NunÄez v. Commission
              of the European Communities (1)
                                                                    In Case T-217/97: Lut Fabert-Goossens, a member of the
(Officials Ð Classification Ð Additional seniority Ð                temporary staff of the Commission of the European
Professional experience and university education prior to           Communities, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the
                          recruitment)                              LieÁge Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                    the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 de Nassau, v.
                         (98/C 397/56)
                                                                    Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Julian
                                                                    Currall, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck) Ð application for
                                                                    annulment of the Commission's decision to recruit the
               (Language of the case: French)                       applicant as a member of the temporary staff in the
                                                                    context of selection procedure 50T/XVI/93 instead of
                                                                    selection procedure 71T/TFRH/93, and to classify her in
In Case T-100/98: Miguel Vicente-NunÄez, an official of             grade A 7 rather than grade A 5 Ð the Court of First
the Commission of the European Communities, residing at             Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
Krainem (Belgium), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of             President, R. M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges;


title: Order of the Court of First Instance 8 November 2001 in Case T-65/96: Kish Glass & Co. Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Taxation of costs — Indispensable expenses incurred for the purposes of the proceedings — Lawyer's fees)

text:
C 84/58                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         6.4.2002
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                        S. Rating) — application for interim measures consisting of,
                       8 November 2001                                  first, suspension of operation of the Commission’s decision of
                                                                        14 August 2001 refusing to allow the applicant access
in Case T-65/96: Kish Glass & Co. Ltd v Commission of                   to certain documents concerning the abandonment of the
                the European Communities (1)                            procedure brought against other banks in case COMP/
                                                                        E-1/37.919 — Bank charges for exchanging euro zone
                                                                        currencies and, second, suspension of the procedure under
(Taxation of costs — Indispensable expenses incurred for
                                                                        Article 81 EC in the same case as regards the applicant — the
      the purposes of the proceedings — Lawyer’s fees)
                                                                        President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
                                                                        5 December 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
                        (2002/C 84/107)
                  (Language of the case: English)                       1.     The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                        2.     The costs are reserved.
In Case T-65/96 DEP, Kish Glass & Co. Ltd, established in
Dublin (Ireland), represented by M. Byrne, Solicitor, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the
European Communities (agents: R. Lyal, R. Caudwell and
B. Doherty), supported by Pilkington United Kingdom Ltd,
established in Saint Helens, Merseyside (United Kingdom),
represented by J. Kallaugher, Solicitor, A. Weitbrecht, and
M. Hansen, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg:          ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Application for taxation of the costs to be reimbursed by                                              INSTANCE
the applicant to the intervener, Pilkington United Kingdom,
pursuant to the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case
                                                                                of 5 December 2001
T-65/96 Kish Glass v Commission [2000] ECR II-1885, the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges, Registrar:     in Case T-219/01 R: Commerzbank AG v Commission of
J. Palacio González, Administrator, has made an order on                                  the European Communities
8 November 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                        (Procedure for interim relief — Decision refusing access to
The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by Kish Glass & Co. Ltd
                                                                        certain documents — Admissibility of the action in the main
to the intervener, Pilkington United Kingdom Ltd is fixed at
                                                                                proceedings)
BEF 1 200 000.
(1) OJ C 210 of 20.7.1996.
                                                                                (2002/C 84/109)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                            In Case T-219/01 R: Commerzbank AG, established in Frank-
                           INSTANCE                                     furt am Main (Germany), represented by H. Satzky and
                                                                        B.M. Maassen, lawyers, v Commission of the European Com-
                     of 5 December 2001                                 munities (Agent: S. Rating) — application for interim measures
                                                                        consisting of, first, suspension of operation of the Com-
in Case T-216/01 R: Reisebank AG v Commission of the                    mission’s decision of 17 August 2001 refusing to allow
                    European Communities                                the applicant access to certain documents concerning the
                                                                        abandonment of the procedure brought against other banks in
                                                                        case COMP/E-1/37.919 — Bank charges for exchanging euro
(Procedure for interim relief — Decision refusing access to             zone currencies and, second, suspension of the procedure
certain documents — Admissibility of the action in the main             under Article 81 EC in the same case as regards the applicant
                           proceedings)                                 — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order
                                                                        on 5 December 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
                        (2002/C 84/108)
                  (Language of the case: German)                        1.     The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                        2.     The costs are reserved.
In Case T-216/01 R: Reisebank AG, established in Frankfurt am
Main (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer,