# Official Journal C 229/17 S

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 229 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4817 September 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 229

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4817 September 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Court of Justice |
| | COURT OF JUSTICE |
| 2005/C 229/1 | Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-40/03 P: Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV v Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — Arrangements for association of the overseas countries and territories — Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa — Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 — Safeguard measures — Article 109 of the OCT Decision — Commission's power of assessment — Principle of proportionality — Reasons) | 1 |
| 2005/C 229/2 | Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-41/03 P: Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV v Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic (Appeal — Arrangements for association of the overseas countries and territories — Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa — Regulation (EC) No 465/2000 — Safeguard measures — Article 109 of the OCT Decision — Commission's power of assessment — Principle of proportionality — Reasons) | 1 |
| 2005/C 229/3 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-153/03: (Reference for a preliminary ruling, Cour de cassation) Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Ursula Schwarz, née Weide (Family benefits — Child-raising allowance — Suspension of entitlement to the benefits in the State of employment — Entitlement to similar benefits in the State of residence) | 2 |
| 2005/C 229/4 | Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-227/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Amsterdam in A.J. van Pommeren-Bourgondiën v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Scope — Invalidity benefit — Continued entitlement to benefits after transfer of residence to another Member State) | 2 |
| 2005/C 229/5 | Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-353/03 (Reference for a preliminary ruling Court of Appeal): Société des produits Nestlé SA v Mars UK Ltd (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Absence of distinctive character — Distinctive character acquired through use — Use as part of or in conjunction with a registered trade mark) | 3 |
| 2005/C 229/6 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-374/03 (Reference for a preliminary ruling Verwaltungsgericht): Gaye Gürol v Bezirksregierung Köln (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Direct effect — Access to education for children of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the workforce — Children living with their parents — Education grant) | 3 |
| 2005/C 229/7 | Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-214/04: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Substances harmful to the ozone layer — Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 — Maintenance of derogations not provided for in the regulation) | 3 |
| 2005/C 229/8 | Case C-206/05: Action brought on 11 May 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden | 4 |
| 2005/C 229/9 | Case C-253/05: Action brought on 15 June 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands | 4 |
| 2005/C 229/0 | Case C-267/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales) Chancery Division, Patents Court by order of that court of 17 February 2005 in Oakley Inc. v 1) Animal Ltd 2) H. Young Holdings plc 3) H. Young (Operations) Ltd, Intervener: Secretary of State for Industry | 5 |
| 2005/C 229/1 | Case C-269/05: Action brought on 23 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic | 5 |
| 2005/C 229/2 | Case C-271/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato by order of that court of 18 January 2005 in (1) Francesco Rauty v Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali and Soprintendenza B.A.A. di Firenze, Prato e Pistoia; intervener: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri; and (2) Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Pistoia v Francesco Rauty and Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali; intervener: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri | 6 |
| 2005/C 229/3 | Case C-274/05: Action brought on 4 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic | 6 |
| 2005/C 229/4 | Case C-275/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen by order of that court of 12 May 2005 in Alois Kibler jun. v Land Baden-Württemberg, joined parties: Manfred Ott and Konrad Leiprecht | 7 |
| 2005/C 229/5 | Case C-277/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France), acting in a judicial capacity, by order of that court of 18 May 2005 in Société thermale d'Eugénie-Les-Bains v Ministère de l'Economie, des Finances et de l'Industrie | 7 |
| 2005/C 229/6 | Case C-280/05: Action brought on 11 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic | 8 |
| 2005/C 229/7 | Case C-283/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 30 June 2005 in ASML Netherlands BV v SEMIS Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH | 8 |
| 2005/C 229/8 | Case C-286/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg by order of that court of 30 June 2005 in Reinhold Haug v Land Baden-Württemberg | 9 |
| 2005/C 229/9 | Case C-293/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic | 9 |
| 2005/C 229/0 | Case C-302/05: Action brought on 28 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against Italian Republic | 10 |
| 2005/C 229/1 | Case C-304/05: Action brought on 29 July 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic | 10 |
| 2005/C 229/2 | Removal from the register of Case C-326/04 | 11 |
| | COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE |
| 2005/C 229/3 | Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2005 in Case T-260/97 Camar Srl v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Import arrangements — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Assessment of loss) | 12 |
| 2005/C 229/4 | Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 July 2005 in Case T-241/01, Scandinavian Airlines System AB v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Cartel — Air transport — Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 — Notified agreements — Cooperation beyond the scope of the notification — Market-sharing — Fine — Guidelines for the calculation of fines — Seriousness of the infringement — Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines — Attenuating circumstances — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 12 |
| 2005/C 229/5 | Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 July 2005 in Joined Cases T-49/02 to T-51/02 Brassierie nationale SA (formerly Brasseries Funck-Bricher and Bofferding) and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Cartels — Luxembourg beer market — Fines) | 13 |
| 2005/C 229/6 | Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2005 in Case T-242/02, The Sunrider Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word mark TOP — Refusal of registration — Article 115(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Definition of written communications — Infringement of the principle that decisions must be adopted within a reasonable time — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94) | 13 |
| 2005/C 229/7 | Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2005 in Case T-40/03: Julián Murúa Entrena v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Application for figurative Community trade mark including the verbal element Julián Murúa Entrena — Opposition by the proprietor of the Spanish and international work mark MURÚA — Refusal to register — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Surname) | 14 |
| 2005/C 229/8 | Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2005 in Case T-126/03 Reckitt Benckiser (España), SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Likelihood of confusion — Proof of use of earlier mark — Application for Community word mark ALADIN — Earlier national word mark ALADDIN — Articles 8(1)(b) and 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94) | 14 |
| 2005/C 229/9 | Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2005 in Case T-312/03 Wassen International Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Earlier national figurative mark comprising the word element Selenium Spezial A-C-E — Application for Community word mark SELENIUM-ACE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94) | 15 |
| 2005/C 229/0 | Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2005 in Case T-371/03, Vincenzo Le Voci v Council of the European Union (Officials — Internal competition — Non-admission to the oral tests — Breach of the competition notice — Irregularity in the conduct of the tests of such a kind as to distort the results — Principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination — Principle of sound administration) | 15 |
| 2005/C 229/1 | Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2005 in Case T-5/04: Carlo Scano v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Internal competition — Multiple-choice questions — Refusal by the selection board not to take account of certain questions — Equal treatment — Principle of good administration — Ambit of judicial review — Action for annulment — Action for damages) | 15 |
| 2005/C 229/2 | Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2005 in Case T-157/04 Joël De Bry v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Career development report — Appraisal exercise 2001/2002) | 16 |
| 2005/C 229/3 | Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2005 in Case T-459/04, Jorge Manuel Pinheiro de Jesus Ferreira v Commission of the European Communities (Community officials — Appointment — Classification in grade — Classification in a higher grade) | 16 |
| 2005/C 229/4 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 June 2005 in Case T-188/02: Freiberger Lebensmittel GmbH & Co. Produktions- und Vertriebs KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 16 |
| 2005/C 229/5 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005 in Case T-139/03: Nuova Agricast Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Non-disclosure of document emanating from a Member State without the prior agreement of that State) | 17 |
| 2005/C 229/6 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005 in Case T-151/03 Nuova Agricast Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Action devoid of purpose) | 17 |
| 2005/C 229/7 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 June 2005 in Case T-265/03 Helm Düngemittel GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Food aid — Partial seizure of delivery guarantee — Request for repayment of the sum seized — Arbitration clause — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility) | 18 |
| 2005/C 229/8 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 June 2005 in Case T-274/03: Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to proceed to judgment) | 18 |
| 2005/C 229/9 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005 in Case T-287/03 Società imballaggi metallici Salerno Srl (SIMSA) v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — No disclosure of a document emanating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State) | 18 |
| 2005/C 229/0 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005 in Case T-295/03 Poli Sud Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — No disclosure of a document originating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State) | 19 |
| 2005/C 229/1 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005 in Case T-297/03 Tomasetto Achille Sas di Tomasetto Andrea & C. v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — No disclosure of a document originating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State) | 19 |
| 2005/C 229/2 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005 in Case T-298/03 Lavorazione Cuoio e Pelli Bieffe Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — No disclosure of a document originating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State) | 20 |
| 2005/C 229/3 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005 in Case T-299/03 Nuova fabbrica utensili diamantati Srl (Nuova Fa. U. Di) v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — No disclosure of a document originating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State) | 20 |
| 2005/C 229/4 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2005 in Case T-13/04: Jens-Peter Bonde and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Regulation on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding — Action for annulment — Objection as to admissibility — Challengeable act — Standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility) | 20 |
| 2005/C 229/5 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2005 in Case T-17/04 Front national and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding — Action for annulment — Objection of inadmissibility — Act against which proceedings may be brought — Locus standi — Inadmissibility) | 21 |
| 2005/C 229/6 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2005 in Case T-138/04 Cementir — Cementerie del Tirreno SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment of a Commission letter determining the amount of interest for delay applicable to a fine imposed on the applicant — Meaning of a measure confirming an earlier measure — Admissibility) | 21 |
| 2005/C 229/7 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2005 in Case T-40/04 Emma Bonino and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding — Action for annulment — Objection of inadmissibility — Act against which proceedings may be brought — Locus standi — Inadmissibility) | 22 |
| 2005/C 229/8 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 June 2005 in Case T-98/04 Nuova Agricast Srl and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Admissibility — Time-limits — Point when time starts to run — Publication — Internet site) | 22 |
| 2005/C 229/9 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 June 2005 in Case T-147/04: Brian Ross v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Action for annulment and for damages — Career development report — Total and permanent invalidity — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility) | 22 |
| 2005/C 229/0 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2005 in Case T-163/04: Michael Schäfer v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for restitutio in integrum — Appeal before a Board of Appeal — Costs of proceedings — Apportionment) | 23 |
| 2005/C 229/1 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2005 in Case T-294/04 Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v Commission of the European Communities (Non-contractual liability — Reimbursement of costs relating to procedures before the European Ombudsman — Action manifestly unfounded) | 23 |
| 2005/C 229/2 | Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 5 July 2005 in Case T-117/05 R: Andreas Rodenbröker v Commission of the European Communities (Application for interim measures — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Directive 92/43/EEC — Urgency — None) | 24 |
| 2005/C 229/3 | Case T-228/05: Action brought on 13 June 2005 by Javier Maria Vega Bordell against the European Parliament | 24 |
| 2005/C 229/4 | Case T-232/05: Action brought on 15 June 2005 by Trevor Hutchings against the Commission of the European Communities | 24 |
| 2005/C 229/5 | Case T-252/05: Action brought on 4 July 2005 by Q against the Commission of the European Communities | 25 |
| 2005/C 229/6 | Case T-253/05: Action brought on 4 July 2005 by José Fernandez Tunon against the Commission of the European Communities | 25 |
| 2005/C 229/7 | Case T-254/05: Action brought on 6 July 2005 by Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie e.V. Deutsche Gruppe der EURIMA — European Insulation Manufacturers Association against the Commission of the European Communities | 26 |
| 2005/C 229/8 | Case T-256/05: Action brought on 1 July 2005 by Fernanda Ehrhardt-Avancini against the European Parliament | 27 |
| 2005/C 229/9 | Case T-258/05: Action brought on 30 June 2005 by Eric Voigt against the Commission of the European Communities | 27 |
| 2005/C 229/0 | Case T-260/05: Action brought on 14 July 2005 by Peter Strobl against the Commission of the European Communities | 28 |
| 2005/C 229/1 | Case T-261/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Frank Sliggers against the Commission of the European Communities | 29 |
| 2005/C 229/2 | Case T-265/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Johan Maes against the Commission of the European Communities | 29 |
| 2005/C 229/3 | Case T-267/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Elisabeth De Smedt against the Commission of the European Communities | 29 |
| 2005/C 229/4 | Case T-268/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Patrice Vande Velde against the Commission of the European Communities | 30 |
| 2005/C 229/5 | Case T-269/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Raffaele Dalmasso against the Commission of the European Communities | 30 |
| 2005/C 229/6 | Case T-270/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Matthias Ghem against the Commission of the European Communities | 31 |
| 2005/C 229/7 | Case T-271/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Miriam Arana de la Cal against the Commission of the European Communities | 31 |
| 2005/C 229/8 | Case T-272/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Stéphane Veramme against the Commission of the European Communities | 32 |
| 2005/C 229/9 | Case T-282/05: Action brought on 12 July 2005 by Paulo Sequeira Wandschneider against the Commission of the European Communities | 32 |
| 2005/C 229/0 | Case T-283/05: Action brought on 13 July 2005 by Daniele Baraldi and Others against the Commission of the European Communities | 33 |
| 2005/C 229/1 | Case T-284/05: Action brought on 14 July 2005 against the Commission of the European Communities by Christos Michail | 33 |
| 2005/C 229/2 | Case T-285/05: Action brought on 19 July 2005 by Bernd Lippert against the European Parliament | 34 |
| 2005/C 229/3 | Case T-286/05: Action brought on 18 July 2005 by the Centre Européen pour la Statistique et le Développement A.s.b.l. (C.E.S.D.) against the Commission of the European Communities | 34 |
| 2005/C 229/4 | Case T-287/05: Action brought on 15 July 2005 by Idoia Bengoa Geisler and two other officials against the Court of Justice of the European Communities | 35 |
| 2005/C 229/5 | Case T-288/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by Harald Mische against the Commission of the European Communities | 35 |
| 2005/C 229/6 | Case T-289/05: Action brought on 26 July 2005 by Arcangelo Milella and Another against the Commission of the European Communities | 36 |
| 2005/C 229/7 | Case T-291/05: Action brought on 25 July 2005 by Mohammad Reza Fardoom and Michael Ashbrook against the Commission of the European Communities | 37 |
| 2005/C 229/8 | Case T-292/05: Action brought on 26 July 2005 by Maria Johansen against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities | 37 |
| 2005/C 229/9 | Case T-293/05: Action brought on 26 July 2005 by Maurizio Caldarone against the Commission of the European Communities | 38 |
| 2005/C 229/0 | Case T-294/05: Action brought on 26 July 2005 by Jean-Marc Colombani against the Commission of the European Communities | 38 |
| 2005/C 229/1 | Case T-295/05: Action brought on 1 August 2005 by Document Security Systems, Inc. against the European Central Bank | 39 |
| 2005/C 229/2 | Removal from the Register of Case T-141/04 | 40 |
| 2005/C 229/3 | Removal from the Register of Case T-468/04 | 40 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Court of Justice

COURT OF JUSTICE

2005/C 229/1

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-40/03 P: Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV v Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — Arrangements for association of the overseas countries and territories — Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa — Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 — Safeguard measures — Article 109 of the OCT Decision — Commission's power of assessment — Principle of proportionality — Reasons)

1

2005/C 229/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-41/03 P: Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV v Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic (Appeal — Arrangements for association of the overseas countries and territories — Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa — Regulation (EC) No 465/2000 — Safeguard measures — Article 109 of the OCT Decision — Commission's power of assessment — Principle of proportionality — Reasons)

1

2005/C 229/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-153/03: (Reference for a preliminary ruling, Cour de cassation) Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Ursula Schwarz, née Weide (Family benefits — Child-raising allowance — Suspension of entitlement to the benefits in the State of employment — Entitlement to similar benefits in the State of residence)

2

2005/C 229/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-227/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Amsterdam in A.J. van Pommeren-Bourgondiën v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Scope — Invalidity benefit — Continued entitlement to benefits after transfer of residence to another Member State)

2

2005/C 229/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-353/03 (Reference for a preliminary ruling Court of Appeal): Société des produits Nestlé SA v Mars UK Ltd (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Absence of distinctive character — Distinctive character acquired through use — Use as part of or in conjunction with a registered trade mark)

3

2005/C 229/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-374/03 (Reference for a preliminary ruling Verwaltungsgericht): Gaye Gürol v Bezirksregierung Köln (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Direct effect — Access to education for children of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the workforce — Children living with their parents — Education grant)

3

2005/C 229/7

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-214/04: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Substances harmful to the ozone layer — Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 — Maintenance of derogations not provided for in the regulation)

3

2005/C 229/8

Case C-206/05: Action brought on 11 May 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

4

2005/C 229/9

Case C-253/05: Action brought on 15 June 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

4

2005/C 229/0

Case C-267/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales) Chancery Division, Patents Court by order of that court of 17 February 2005 in Oakley Inc. v 1) Animal Ltd 2) H. Young Holdings plc 3) H. Young (Operations) Ltd, Intervener: Secretary of State for Industry

5

2005/C 229/1

Case C-269/05: Action brought on 23 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

5

2005/C 229/2

Case C-271/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato by order of that court of 18 January 2005 in (1) Francesco Rauty v Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali and Soprintendenza B.A.A. di Firenze, Prato e Pistoia; intervener: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri; and (2) Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Pistoia v Francesco Rauty and Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali; intervener: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri

6

2005/C 229/3

Case C-274/05: Action brought on 4 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

6

2005/C 229/4

Case C-275/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen by order of that court of 12 May 2005 in Alois Kibler jun. v Land Baden-Württemberg, joined parties: Manfred Ott and Konrad Leiprecht

7

2005/C 229/5

Case C-277/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France), acting in a judicial capacity, by order of that court of 18 May 2005 in Société thermale d'Eugénie-Les-Bains v Ministère de l'Economie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

7

2005/C 229/6

Case C-280/05: Action brought on 11 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

8

2005/C 229/7

Case C-283/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 30 June 2005 in ASML Netherlands BV v SEMIS Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH

8

2005/C 229/8

Case C-286/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg by order of that court of 30 June 2005 in Reinhold Haug v Land Baden-Württemberg

9

2005/C 229/9

Case C-293/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

9

2005/C 229/0

Case C-302/05: Action brought on 28 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against Italian Republic

10

2005/C 229/1

Case C-304/05: Action brought on 29 July 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

10

2005/C 229/2

Removal from the register of Case C-326/04

11

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

2005/C 229/3

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2005 in Case T-260/97 Camar Srl v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Import arrangements — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Assessment of loss)

12

2005/C 229/4

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 July 2005 in Case T-241/01, Scandinavian Airlines System AB v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Cartel — Air transport — Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 — Notified agreements — Cooperation beyond the scope of the notification — Market-sharing — Fine — Guidelines for the calculation of fines — Seriousness of the infringement — Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines — Attenuating circumstances — Unlimited jurisdiction)

12

2005/C 229/5

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 July 2005 in Joined Cases T-49/02 to T-51/02 Brassierie nationale SA (formerly Brasseries Funck-Bricher and Bofferding) and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Cartels — Luxembourg beer market — Fines)

13

2005/C 229/6

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2005 in Case T-242/02, The Sunrider Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word mark TOP — Refusal of registration — Article 115(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Definition of written communications — Infringement of the principle that decisions must be adopted within a reasonable time — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94)

13

2005/C 229/7

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2005 in Case T-40/03: Julián Murúa Entrena v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Application for figurative Community trade mark including the verbal element Julián Murúa Entrena — Opposition by the proprietor of the Spanish and international work mark MURÚA — Refusal to register — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Surname)

14

2005/C 229/8

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2005 in Case T-126/03 Reckitt Benckiser (España), SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Likelihood of confusion — Proof of use of earlier mark — Application for Community word mark ALADIN — Earlier national word mark ALADDIN — Articles 8(1)(b) and 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

14

2005/C 229/9

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2005 in Case T-312/03 Wassen International Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Earlier national figurative mark comprising the word element Selenium Spezial A-C-E — Application for Community word mark SELENIUM-ACE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

15

2005/C 229/0

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2005 in Case T-371/03, Vincenzo Le Voci v Council of the European Union (Officials — Internal competition — Non-admission to the oral tests — Breach of the competition notice — Irregularity in the conduct of the tests of such a kind as to distort the results — Principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination — Principle of sound administration)

15

2005/C 229/1

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2005 in Case T-5/04: Carlo Scano v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Internal competition — Multiple-choice questions — Refusal by the selection board not to take account of certain questions — Equal treatment — Principle of good administration — Ambit of judicial review — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

15

2005/C 229/2

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2005 in Case T-157/04 Joël De Bry v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Career development report — Appraisal exercise 2001/2002)

16

2005/C 229/3

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2005 in Case T-459/04, Jorge Manuel Pinheiro de Jesus Ferreira v Commission of the European Communities (Community officials — Appointment — Classification in grade — Classification in a higher grade)

16

2005/C 229/4

Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 June 2005 in Case T-188/02: Freiberger Lebensmittel GmbH & Co. Produktions- und Vertriebs KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

16

2005/C 229/5

Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005 in Case T-139/03: Nuova Agricast Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Non-disclosure of document emanating from a Member State without the prior agreement of that State)

17

2005/C 229/6

Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005 in Case T-151/03 Nuova Agricast Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Action devoid of purpose)

17

2005/C 229/7

Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 June 2005 in Case T-265/03 Helm Düngemittel GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Food aid — Partial seizure of delivery guarantee — Request for repayment of the sum seized — Arbitration clause — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

18

2005/C 229/8

Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 June 2005 in Case T-274/03: Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to proceed to judgment)

18

2005/C 229/9

Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005 in Case T-287/03 Società imballaggi metallici Salerno Srl (SIMSA) v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — No disclosure of a document emanating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State)

18

2005/C 229/0

Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005 in Case T-295/03 Poli Sud Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — No disclosure of a document originating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State)

19

2005/C 229/1

Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005 in Case T-297/03 Tomasetto Achille Sas di Tomasetto Andrea & C. v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — No disclosure of a document originating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State)

19

2005/C 229/2

Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005 in Case T-298/03 Lavorazione Cuoio e Pelli Bieffe Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — No disclosure of a document originating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State)

20

2005/C 229/3

Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005 in Case T-299/03 Nuova fabbrica utensili diamantati Srl (Nuova Fa. U. Di) v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — No disclosure of a document originating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State)

20

2005/C 229/4

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2005 in Case T-13/04: Jens-Peter Bonde and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Regulation on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding — Action for annulment — Objection as to admissibility — Challengeable act — Standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility)

20

2005/C 229/5

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2005 in Case T-17/04 Front national and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding — Action for annulment — Objection of inadmissibility — Act against which proceedings may be brought — Locus standi — Inadmissibility)

21

2005/C 229/6

Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2005 in Case T-138/04 Cementir — Cementerie del Tirreno SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment of a Commission letter determining the amount of interest for delay applicable to a fine imposed on the applicant — Meaning of a measure confirming an earlier measure — Admissibility)

21

2005/C 229/7

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2005 in Case T-40/04 Emma Bonino and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding — Action for annulment — Objection of inadmissibility — Act against which proceedings may be brought — Locus standi — Inadmissibility)

22

2005/C 229/8

Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 June 2005 in Case T-98/04 Nuova Agricast Srl and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Admissibility — Time-limits — Point when time starts to run — Publication — Internet site)

22

2005/C 229/9

Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 June 2005 in Case T-147/04: Brian Ross v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Action for annulment and for damages — Career development report — Total and permanent invalidity — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

22

2005/C 229/0

Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2005 in Case T-163/04: Michael Schäfer v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for restitutio in integrum — Appeal before a Board of Appeal — Costs of proceedings — Apportionment)

23

2005/C 229/1

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2005 in Case T-294/04 Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v Commission of the European Communities (Non-contractual liability — Reimbursement of costs relating to procedures before the European Ombudsman — Action manifestly unfounded)

23

2005/C 229/2

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 5 July 2005 in Case T-117/05 R: Andreas Rodenbröker v Commission of the European Communities (Application for interim measures — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Directive 92/43/EEC — Urgency — None)

24

2005/C 229/3

Case T-228/05: Action brought on 13 June 2005 by Javier Maria Vega Bordell against the European Parliament

24

2005/C 229/4

Case T-232/05: Action brought on 15 June 2005 by Trevor Hutchings against the Commission of the European Communities

24

2005/C 229/5

Case T-252/05: Action brought on 4 July 2005 by Q against the Commission of the European Communities

25

2005/C 229/6

Case T-253/05: Action brought on 4 July 2005 by José Fernandez Tunon against the Commission of the European Communities

25

2005/C 229/7

Case T-254/05: Action brought on 6 July 2005 by Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie e.V. Deutsche Gruppe der EURIMA — European Insulation Manufacturers Association against the Commission of the European Communities

26

2005/C 229/8

Case T-256/05: Action brought on 1 July 2005 by Fernanda Ehrhardt-Avancini against the European Parliament

27

2005/C 229/9

Case T-258/05: Action brought on 30 June 2005 by Eric Voigt against the Commission of the European Communities

27

2005/C 229/0

Case T-260/05: Action brought on 14 July 2005 by Peter Strobl against the Commission of the European Communities

28

2005/C 229/1

Case T-261/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Frank Sliggers against the Commission of the European Communities

29

2005/C 229/2

Case T-265/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Johan Maes against the Commission of the European Communities

29

2005/C 229/3

Case T-267/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Elisabeth De Smedt against the Commission of the European Communities

29

2005/C 229/4

Case T-268/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Patrice Vande Velde against the Commission of the European Communities

30

2005/C 229/5

Case T-269/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Raffaele Dalmasso against the Commission of the European Communities

30

2005/C 229/6

Case T-270/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Matthias Ghem against the Commission of the European Communities

31

2005/C 229/7

Case T-271/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Miriam Arana de la Cal against the Commission of the European Communities

31

2005/C 229/8

Case T-272/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Stéphane Veramme against the Commission of the European Communities

32

2005/C 229/9

Case T-282/05: Action brought on 12 July 2005 by Paulo Sequeira Wandschneider against the Commission of the European Communities

32

2005/C 229/0

Case T-283/05: Action brought on 13 July 2005 by Daniele Baraldi and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

33

2005/C 229/1

Case T-284/05: Action brought on 14 July 2005 against the Commission of the European Communities by Christos Michail

33

2005/C 229/2

Case T-285/05: Action brought on 19 July 2005 by Bernd Lippert against the European Parliament

34

2005/C 229/3

Case T-286/05: Action brought on 18 July 2005 by the Centre Européen pour la Statistique et le Développement A.s.b.l. (C.E.S.D.) against the Commission of the European Communities

34

2005/C 229/4

Case T-287/05: Action brought on 15 July 2005 by Idoia Bengoa Geisler and two other officials against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

35

2005/C 229/5

Case T-288/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by Harald Mische against the Commission of the European Communities

35

2005/C 229/6

Case T-289/05: Action brought on 26 July 2005 by Arcangelo Milella and Another against the Commission of the European Communities

36

2005/C 229/7

Case T-291/05: Action brought on 25 July 2005 by Mohammad Reza Fardoom and Michael Ashbrook against the Commission of the European Communities

37

2005/C 229/8

Case T-292/05: Action brought on 26 July 2005 by Maria Johansen against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities

37

2005/C 229/9

Case T-293/05: Action brought on 26 July 2005 by Maurizio Caldarone against the Commission of the European Communities

38

2005/C 229/0

Case T-294/05: Action brought on 26 July 2005 by Jean-Marc Colombani against the Commission of the European Communities

38

2005/C 229/1

Case T-295/05: Action brought on 1 August 2005 by Document Security Systems, Inc. against the European Central Bank

39

2005/C 229/2

Removal from the Register of Case T-141/04

40

2005/C 229/3

Removal from the Register of Case T-468/04

40

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| 2005/C 229/4 | Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 217, 3.9.2005 | 41 |

III   Notices

2005/C 229/4

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 217, 3.9.2005

Official Journal of the European Union

41

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

I Information

Court of Justice

COURT OF JUSTICE

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/1

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-40/03 P: Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV v Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Spain (1)

(Appeal - Arrangements for association of the overseas countries and territories - Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa - Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 - Safeguard measures - Article 109 of the OCT Decision - Commission's power of assessment - Principle of proportionality - Reasons)

(2005/C 229/01)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-40/03 P: appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, lodged on 29 January 2003 — Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV, established in Oranjestad (Aruba), (lawyer: G. van der Wal), the other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: T. van Rijn), Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: H. Sevenster), Kingdom of Spain (Agents: N. Díaz Abad and D. Miguel Muñoz Pérez) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C. W. A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen (rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

| 1) | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2) | Orders Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV to pay the costs;

| 3) | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 146 of 21.06.2003.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/1

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-41/03 P: Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV v Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic (1)

(Appeal - Arrangements for association of the overseas countries and territories - Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa - Regulation (EC) No 465/2000 - Safeguard measures - Article 109 of the OCT Decision - Commission's power of assessment - Principle of proportionality - Reasons)

(2005/C 229/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-41/03 P: Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV, established in Oranjestad (Aruba) (Lawyer: G. van der Wal), the other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: T. van Rijn), Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent H. Sevenster), Kingdom of Spain (Agents: N. Díaz Abad and D. Miguel Muñoz Pérez), French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and L. Bernheim) — appeal under Article 49 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 29 January 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 83 of 05.04.2003.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/2

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 7 July 2005

in Case C-153/03: (Reference for a preliminary ruling, Cour de cassation) Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Ursula Schwarz, née Weide (1)

(Family benefits - Child-raising allowance - Suspension of entitlement to the benefits in the State of employment - Entitlement to similar benefits in the State of residence)

(2005/C 229/03)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-153/03, reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Cour de cassation (Luxembourg), made by decision of 6 March 2003, received at the Court on 3 April 2003, in the proceedings Caisse nationale des prestations familiales and Ursula Schwarz, née Weide, the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), M. Ilešič and E. Levits, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, in which it ruled:

Article 10(1)(b)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that the exercise by the spouse of the person entitled to a family benefit in pursuance of Article 73 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, of a professional or trade activity in the Member State of residence of the children suspends entitlement to allowances in pursuance of Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71 up to the amount of the child-raising allowances provided for by the legislation of the Member State of residence, irrespective of who is designated as being directly entitled to the family allowances by the legislation of that State.

---

(1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/2

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 7 July 2005

in Case C-227/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Amsterdam in A.J. van Pommeren-Bourgondiën v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (1)

(Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Scope - Invalidity benefit - Continued entitlement to benefits after transfer of residence to another Member State)

(2005/C 229/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-227/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Rechtbank te Amsterdam (Netherlands), made by decision of 21 May 2003, received at the Court on 26 May 2003, in the proceedings between A.J. van Pommeren-Bourgondiën and Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

Article 39 EC precludes legislation of a Member State pursuant to which a person who has ceased all occupational activity in its territory remains compulsorily insured in respect of some branches of social security only if he continues to reside there, whilst that person remains compulsorily insured under the legislation of that Member State in respect of certain other branches of social security even if his residence is in another Member State, in circumstances where the conditions relating to voluntary insurance, in respect of the branches for which compulsory insurance has ceased, are less favourable than those relating to compulsory insurance.

---

(1)  OJ C 171 of 19.7.2003.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 7 July 2005

in Case C-353/03 (Reference for a preliminary ruling Court of Appeal): Société des produits Nestlé SA v Mars UK Ltd (1)

(Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Absence of distinctive character - Distinctive character acquired through use - Use as part of or in conjunction with a registered trade mark)

(2005/C 229/05)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-353/03, reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom), made by Decision of 25 July 2003, received at the Court on 18 August 2003, in the proceedings between Société des produits Nestlé SA and Mars UK Ltd, the Court: (Second Chamber) composed of C. W. A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General, L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

The distinctive character of a mark referred to in Article 3(3) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks may be acquired in consequence of the use of that mark as part of or in conjunction with a registered trade mark.

---

(1)  OJ C 251 of 18.10.2003.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 7 July 2005

in Case C-374/03 (Reference for a preliminary ruling Verwaltungsgericht): Gaye Gürol v Bezirksregierung Köln (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Direct effect - Access to education for children of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the workforce - Children living with their parents - Education grant)

(2005/C 229/06)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-374/03, reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen (Germany), made by decision of 31 July 2003, received at the Court on 8 September 2003, in the proceedings Gaye Gürol and Bezirksregierung Köln, the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General, M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on 7 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council created under the agreement establishing an association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, has direct effect in the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council created under the agreement establishing an association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, has direct effect in the Member States.

| 2. | The condition of residing with parents in accordance with the first sentence of Article 9 is met in the case of a Turkish child who, after residing legally with his parents in the host Member State, establishes his main residence in the place in the same Member State in which he follows his university studies, while declaring his parents' home to be his secondary residence only. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The condition of residing with parents in accordance with the first sentence of Article 9 is met in the case of a Turkish child who, after residing legally with his parents in the host Member State, establishes his main residence in the place in the same Member State in which he follows his university studies, while declaring his parents' home to be his secondary residence only.

| 3. | The second sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 has direct effect in the Member States. That provision guarantees Turkish children a non-discriminatory right of access to education grants, such as that provided for under the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, that right being theirs even when they pursue higher education studies in Turkey. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The second sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 has direct effect in the Member States. That provision guarantees Turkish children a non-discriminatory right of access to education grants, such as that provided for under the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, that right being theirs even when they pursue higher education studies in Turkey.

---

(1)  OJ C 304 of 13.12.2003.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 7 July 2005

in Case C-214/04: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - Substances harmful to the ozone layer - Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 - Maintenance of derogations not provided for in the regulation)

(2005/C 229/07)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-214/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by G. Fiengo) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 19 May 2004 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, P. Kūris and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that by maintaining arrangements for authorising the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons in fire protection systems without complying with the restrictions and conditions laid down in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that by maintaining arrangements for authorising the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons in fire protection systems without complying with the restrictions and conditions laid down in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation.

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 190 of 24.7.2004.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/4

---

Action brought on 11 May 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-206/05)

(2005/C 229/08)

Language of the case: Swedish

An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Friedrich Erlbacher and Knut Simonsson, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | first, declare that, by laying down in its national legislation a requirement that a stallion be assessed in Sweden for stud purposes before being used to breed with mares other than those of the stallion's owner, Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of Council Directive 90/427/EEC of 26 June 1990 on the zootechnical and genealogical conditions governing intra-Community trade in equidae;
  second, declare that, by laying down in its national legislation a requirement that a stallion must be assessed in Sweden for stud purposes before being used to breed with mares other than those of the stallion's owner, Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

first, declare that, by laying down in its national legislation a requirement that a stallion be assessed in Sweden for stud purposes before being used to breed with mares other than those of the stallion's owner, Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of Council Directive 90/427/EEC of 26 June 1990 on the zootechnical and genealogical conditions governing intra-Community trade in equidae;

second, declare that, by laying down in its national legislation a requirement that a stallion must be assessed in Sweden for stud purposes before being used to breed with mares other than those of the stallion's owner, Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

| 2. | order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that, by laying down in its national legislation a requirement that a stallion be assessed in Sweden for stud purposes before it may be used for breeding with mares other than those of the stallion's owner, the Kingdom of Sweden is restricting trade in horses within the Community.

The fact that in Directive 90/427/EEC, or in any decision adopted on the basis of the directive, methods for assessment for stud purposes are not established does not mean that a Member State is entitled to lay down such a requirement. Moreover, the Swedish requirement for such an assessment is not justified by Article 30 EC in the interest of protecting the health and life of animals. The Commission submits that the Kingdom of Sweden's requirement for an assessment seems to be more in order to improve the characteristics of current breeds than to protect the health and life of horses.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/4

---

Action brought on 15 June 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-253/05)

(2005/C 229/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Minas Konstantinidis and Pieter Van Nuffel, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that, by creating obstacles by means of the Convenant Verpakkingen (packaging rules) III, to the marketing in the Netherlands of drinks packaging originating in other Member States and satisfying the essential requirements laid down in European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC (1) of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by creating obstacles by means of the Convenant Verpakkingen (packaging rules) III, to the marketing in the Netherlands of drinks packaging originating in other Member States and satisfying the essential requirements laid down in European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC (1) of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of that directive;

| — | Order the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas and main arguments:

The Netherlands legislation contains a clear restriction on intra-Community trade in beer, cold drinks and water in single-purpose plastic or glass packaging already marketed in another Member States. The Commission is of the view that this trade restriction is in breach of Article 18 of Directive 94/62 under which Member States may not impede the placing on the market of their territory of packaging which satisfies the provisions of this Directive.

Packaging marketed in another Member State is deemed to satisfy the essential requirements of the directive; dealing in them on the internal market cannot therefore be impeded.

---

(1)  OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/5

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales) Chancery Division, Patents Court by order of that court of 17 February 2005 in Oakley Inc. v 1) Animal Ltd 2) H. Young Holdings plc 3) H. Young (Operations) Ltd, Intervener: Secretary of State for Industry

(Case C-267/05)

(2005/C 229/10)

Language of the case: English

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the High Court of Justice (England and Wales) Chancery Division, Patents Court of 17 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 27 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Oakley Inc. and 1) Animal Ltd 2) H. Young Holdings plc 3) H. Young (Operations) Ltd, Intervener: Secretary of State for Industry, on the following question:

‘With regard to Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs (1), could a national measure adopted by a Member State, after the date mentioned in Article 19, to the extent that the said measure purported to exercise the derogation mentioned in Article 11.8 nevertheless be partly valid according to Community law? Or did the opportunity which was available to a Member State to adopt the derogation conferred by Article 11.8 by a national measure permanently and wholly cease to exist after the date mentioned in Article 19?’

---

(1)  OJ L 289, 28.10.1998, p. 28

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/5

---

Action brought on 23 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-269/05)

(2005/C 229/11)

Language of the case: Greek

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Knut Simonsson and Georgios Zavvos, members of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| (1) | declare that, by maintaining in force the harbour dues levied on passenger vessels (including cruise ships) or on cargo vessels when they enter into harbour, berth and anchor in the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki, applying a lower level of dues when transport is between two ports within Greece as compared with cases where transport is to a destination outside Greece, namely:






  — | harbour dues for the benefit of the harbour funds of the Port Authorities AE, set up by Law No 2932/2001, and of the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki, which are levied on vehicles aboard ferries on international routes, while similar dues are not levied on routes between Greek ports, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(1)

declare that, by maintaining in force the harbour dues levied on passenger vessels (including cruise ships) or on cargo vessels when they enter into harbour, berth and anchor in the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki, applying a lower level of dues when transport is between two ports within Greece as compared with cases where transport is to a destination outside Greece, namely:

—

harbour dues for the benefit of the harbour funds of the Port Authorities AE, set up by Law No 2932/2001, and of the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki, which are levied on vehicles aboard ferries on international routes, while similar dues are not levied on routes between Greek ports,

| — | the right to levy dues on vehicles aboard vehicle ferries with a foreign port destination for the benefit of municipalities and communities under Article 26(13) of Law No 1828/1989, |
| --- | --- |

—

the right to levy dues on vehicles aboard vehicle ferries with a foreign port destination for the benefit of municipalities and communities under Article 26(13) of Law No 1828/1989,

the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 (1) of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries.

| 2. | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission complains that the Hellenic Republic did not transpose correctly into its national legal system the provisions of Regulation No 4055/86, as interpreted by the Court of Justice (Case C-381/93 Commission v France, 
   (2) Case C-18/93 Corsica Ferries Italia, (3) and Case C-435/00 Geha Naftiliaki
   (4)).

---

(1)  OJ L 378 of 31.12.1986, p. 1.

(2)  [1994] ECR I-5145.

(3)  [1998] ECR I-1783.

(4)  [2002] ECR I-10615.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato by order of that court of 18 January 2005 in (1) Francesco Rauty v Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali and Soprintendenza B.A.A. di Firenze, Prato e Pistoia; intervener: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri; and (2) Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Pistoia v Francesco Rauty and Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali; intervener: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri

(Case C-271/05)

(2005/C 229/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) of 18 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 30 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between (1) Francesco Rauty against Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali and Soprintendenza B.A.A. di Firenze, Prato e Pistoia; intervener: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri; and (2) Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Pistoia against Francesco Rauty and Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali; intervener: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri on the following questions:

| (1) | Are ‘laurea in architettura’ diplomas and ‘laurea in ingegneria civile’ diplomas awarded by Italian universities and university institutes to be regarded as equivalent in respect of Italy, as provided for in Articles 10 and 11 of Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985, (1) so that graduates in civil engineering with the relevant qualification are entitled to pursue the profession of architect and therefore to carry out all the tasks and assignments which any internal provisions of the State allow only the architects' profession to perform; or |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Are ‘laurea in architettura’ diplomas and ‘laurea in ingegneria civile’ diplomas awarded by Italian universities and university institutes to be regarded as equivalent in respect of Italy, as provided for in Articles 10 and 11 of Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985, (1) so that graduates in civil engineering with the relevant qualification are entitled to pursue the profession of architect and therefore to carry out all the tasks and assignments which any internal provisions of the State allow only the architects' profession to perform; or

| (2) | Have the provisions of Articles 10 and 11 cited above recognised the equivalence of the two diplomas (in architecture and civil engineering) only to the extent that both allow access to the profession of architect subject to successful completion of a special examination giving entitlement to pursue the profession of architect? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Have the provisions of Articles 10 and 11 cited above recognised the equivalence of the two diplomas (in architecture and civil engineering) only to the extent that both allow access to the profession of architect subject to successful completion of a special examination giving entitlement to pursue the profession of architect?

---

(1)  OJ L 223 of 21.08.1985, p. 15.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/6

---

Action brought on 4 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-274/05)

(2005/C 229/13)

Language of the case: Greek

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Georgios Zavvos and Hans Støvlbæk, members of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that:






  — | by failing to recognise the diplomas awarded by the competent authorities of another Member State in the context of studies on a franchise basis, under licence, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare that:

—

by failing to recognise the diplomas awarded by the competent authorities of another Member State in the context of studies on a franchise basis, under licence,

| — | by providing for the imposition of compensatory measures in more cases than those allowed by the directive, |
| --- | --- |

—

by providing for the imposition of compensatory measures in more cases than those allowed by the directive,

| — | by entrusting to the Council for the Recognition of Professional Equivalence of Higher-Education Titles examination as to whether ‘the educational establishment in which the applicant received his professional education and training should be classified as higher education’ and whether ‘the applicant has the necessary professional experience, in a case where the duration of the education falls short by at least one year from that required in Greece in order to exercise that profession’, |
| --- | --- |

—

by entrusting to the Council for the Recognition of Professional Equivalence of Higher-Education Titles examination as to whether ‘the educational establishment in which the applicant received his professional education and training should be classified as higher education’ and whether ‘the applicant has the necessary professional experience, in a case where the duration of the education falls short by at least one year from that required in Greece in order to exercise that profession’,

| — | by failing to take into account the professional recognition of professional qualifications acquired in another Member State as regards employment in the public sector and registration in the Technical Chamber of Greece, and |
| --- | --- |

—

by failing to take into account the professional recognition of professional qualifications acquired in another Member State as regards employment in the public sector and registration in the Technical Chamber of Greece, and

| — | by requiring the production of supporting documents certified by the Greek Consular authorities and translated by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs or by a lawyer for the purposes of registration in the Technical Chamber of Greece, |
| --- | --- |

—

by requiring the production of supporting documents certified by the Greek Consular authorities and translated by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs or by a lawyer for the purposes of registration in the Technical Chamber of Greece,

the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 10 of Council Directive 89/48/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission complains that the Hellenic Republic did not transpose correctly into its national legal system the provisions of Directive 89/48/EEC.

---

(1)  OJ L 19 of 24.1.1989.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen by order of that court of 12 May 2005 in Alois Kibler jun. v Land Baden-Württemberg, joined parties: Manfred Ott and Konrad Leiprecht

(Case C-275/05)

(2005/C 229/14)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen (Administrative Court, Sigmaringen) of 12 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 6 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Alois Kibler jun. and Land Baden-Württemberg, joined parties: Manfred Ott and Konrad Leiprecht, on the following questions:

| 1. | Is national legislation of a Member State, which provides that on the return of a leased part of a holding the corresponding reference quantity for the areas of the tenant's holding used for milk production is to revert to the landlord along with that part of the holding even if the landlord, at the time it is so returned, is no longer a milk producer, no longer intends to take up milk production and also does not intend to grant a lease to another milk producer, in conformity with Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84, (1) as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 590/85, (2) and with Article 7(2), (3) and (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88? (3) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is national legislation of a Member State, which provides that on the return of a leased part of a holding the corresponding reference quantity for the areas of the tenant's holding used for milk production is to revert to the landlord along with that part of the holding even if the landlord, at the time it is so returned, is no longer a milk producer, no longer intends to take up milk production and also does not intend to grant a lease to another milk producer, in conformity with Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84, (1) as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 590/85, (2) and with Article 7(2), (3) and (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88? (3)

| 2. | If the answer to the first question should be in the negative: Is national legislation of a Member State, which provides that on the ending of a lease the reference quantity is to be retained in its entirety by the tenant of that part of the holding, in conformity with Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 590/85, and with Article 7(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88 even where the lease has been voluntarily brought to an end? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question should be in the negative: Is national legislation of a Member State, which provides that on the ending of a lease the reference quantity is to be retained in its entirety by the tenant of that part of the holding, in conformity with Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 590/85, and with Article 7(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88 even where the lease has been voluntarily brought to an end?

---

(1)  OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13.

(2)  OJ 1985 L 68, p. 1.

(3)  OJ 1988 L 139, p. 12.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France), acting in a judicial capacity, by order of that court of 18 May 2005 in Société thermale d'Eugénie-Les-Bains v Ministère de l'Economie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

(Case C-277/05)

(2005/C 229/15)

Language of the case: French

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Conseil d'Etat (France), acting in a judicial capacity, of 18 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 5 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Société thermale d'Eugénie-Les-Bains and Ministère de l'Economie, des Finances et de l'Industrie on the following question:

Must sums paid as deposits in the context of sales contracts in relation to the provision of services which are subject to value added tax be regarded, where the purchaser makes use of the cancellation option available to him and those sums are retained by the vendor, as remuneration for the reservation service and, as such, subject to value added tax, or as cancellation payments made to compensate for the loss suffered as a result of the default of the customer, which have no direct connection with any service provided for consideration and, as such, are not subject to value added tax?

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/8

---

Action brought on 11 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-280/05)

(2005/C 229/16)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to take, within the prescribed period, the necessary measures to withdraw the aid scheme considered unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2004/800/EC of 30 March 2004 on the State aid scheme put into effect by Italy providing for urgent measures to assist employment (notified on 1 April 2004 under document number C(2004) 930; OJ 2004 L 352, p. 10) and to recover from the recipients the aid granted under that scheme, and in any event by failing to inform the Commission of such measures, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that Decision and the EC Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to take, within the prescribed period, the necessary measures to withdraw the aid scheme considered unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2004/800/EC of 30 March 2004 on the State aid scheme put into effect by Italy providing for urgent measures to assist employment (notified on 1 April 2004 under document number C(2004) 930; OJ 2004 L 352, p. 10) and to recover from the recipients the aid granted under that scheme, and in any event by failing to inform the Commission of such measures, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that Decision and the EC Treaty;

| 2. | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision of the Commission requires Italy to withdraw the aid scheme referred to in Article 1, to take ‘all necessary measures to recover from the recipients the aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 which has been unlawfully made available to the recipients’ and to cancel ‘all outstanding payments of aid with effect from the date of this Decision’. It must, in addition, inform the Commission, within two months of notification of the Decision, of ‘the measures taken to comply with it’.

Given that the decision was notified on 1 April 2004 the period for compliance expired on 1 June 2004.

So far as concerns the obligation to recover the aid unlawfully paid, it must be stated that, on expiry of the period prescribed, the Italian Republic had not yet informed the Commission of the measures taken to comply with that obligation and that the requests for information by the Commission remained unanswered.

It appears clear that the Italian Republic, by failing to take, within the prescribed period, the necessary measures to withdraw the aid scheme considered unlawful and incompatible with the common market by the decision of the Commission and to recover from the recipients the aid granted under that scheme, and in any event by failing to inform the Commission of such measures, has failed and continues to fail to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that decision.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 30 June 2005 in ASML Netherlands BV v SEMIS Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH

(Case C-283/05)

(2005/C 229/17)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof of 30 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 14 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between ASML Netherlands BV and SEMIS Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH on the following questions:

| 1. | Is the phrase ‘... unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so’ in Article 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Regulation’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘possibility’ of such a challenge is in any event dependent on the due service on the defendant in accordance with the applicable law on service of an office copy of an appealable default judgment delivered in a Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the phrase ‘... unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so’ in Article 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Regulation’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘possibility’ of such a challenge is in any event dependent on the due service on the defendant in accordance with the applicable law on service of an office copy of an appealable default judgment delivered in a Member State?

| 2. | If question 1 is answered in the negative:
  Would the service of an office copy of the order on the application for a declaration of enforceability in Austria of the default judgement of the regional court in 's-Hertogenbosch of 16 July 2004 ... and for an execution order following the foreign order for execution declared enforceable necessarily already have put the defendant and judg- ment debtor (= the defendant in the original proceedings) on notice not only of the existence of that judgment but also of the availability of a legal remedy under the legal order of the State in which the judgment was delivered, so that it would be aware as a result of the possibility of challenging the judgment which is a prior condition for the applicability of the exception to the bar to recognition under Article 34(2) of the Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If question 1 is answered in the negative:

Would the service of an office copy of the order on the application for a declaration of enforceability in Austria of the default judgement of the regional court in 's-Hertogenbosch of 16 July 2004 ... and for an execution order following the foreign order for execution declared enforceable necessarily already have put the defendant and judg- ment debtor (= the defendant in the original proceedings) on notice not only of the existence of that judgment but also of the availability of a legal remedy under the legal order of the State in which the judgment was delivered, so that it would be aware as a result of the possibility of challenging the judgment which is a prior condition for the applicability of the exception to the bar to recognition under Article 34(2) of the Regulation?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg by order of that court of 30 June 2005 in Reinhold Haug v Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-286/05)

(2005/C 229/18)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg of 30 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 18 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Reinhold Haug and Land Baden-Württemberg on the following question:

| 1. | Does the second sentence of Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/1995 apply even if in the context of an irregularity within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that Regulation only the reimbursement of wrongly granted aid is sought (Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/1995 (1) and, because of a provision of Community law that later comes into force, the amount of wrongly granted aid to be reimbursed would be lower than under the provisions of Community law in force at the time that the irregularity was committed?
  If the answer to the first question should be in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the second sentence of Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/1995 apply even if in the context of an irregularity within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that Regulation only the reimbursement of wrongly granted aid is sought (Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/1995 (1) and, because of a provision of Community law that later comes into force, the amount of wrongly granted aid to be reimbursed would be lower than under the provisions of Community law in force at the time that the irregularity was committed?

If the answer to the first question should be in the affirmative:

| 2. | Does the second sentence of Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/1995 also apply with regard to the rules governing payment of interest if no administrative penalties within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that Regulation are imposed on the farmer concerned and the latter is required only to repay the wrongly granted aid within the meaning of Article 4(1) of that Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the second sentence of Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/1995 also apply with regard to the rules governing payment of interest if no administrative penalties within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that Regulation are imposed on the farmer concerned and the latter is required only to repay the wrongly granted aid within the meaning of Article 4(1) of that Regulation?

---

(1)  OJ L 312, p. 1.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/9

---

Action brought on 20 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-293/05)

(2005/C 229/19)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Sara Pardo Quintillan and Donatella Recchia, of its Legal Service.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to take measures to ensure that, as from 31 December 1998, urban waste water from the agglomeration of several communes of the Province of Varese situated in the basin of the River Olona is subject to more stringent treatment than the secondary treatment or equivalent treatment provided for in Article 4 of Directive 91/271/EEC, (1) the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of that directive, referred to in Article 5(5) thereof; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to take measures to ensure that, as from 31 December 1998, urban waste water from the agglomeration of several communes of the Province of Varese situated in the basin of the River Olona is subject to more stringent treatment than the secondary treatment or equivalent treatment provided for in Article 4 of Directive 91/271/EEC, (1) the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of that directive, referred to in Article 5(5) thereof;

| 2. | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission does not challenge the failure to designate the basin which drains the southern Lambro-Olona area as a sensitive area, inasmuch as appropriate infringement proceedings are pending for that purpose. However, that drainage basin is part of an area situated within the Po basin, which has been officially designated a sensitive area.

Accordingly, pursuant to Article 5(5) of Directive 91/271, which refers to Article 5(2) thereof, water from the agglomeration in the Province of Varese situated in the basin of the River Olona should have been subject to more stringent treatment than secondary treatment since 31 December 1998.

Despite the passing of that time-limit, the agglomeration of the Varese area has, up to the present day, still not been provided with purification plants to ensure that the waste water from that agglomeration is treated in accordance with Article 5(2) of Directive 91/271/EEC.

---

(1)  Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ L 135 of 30.05.1991, p. 40).

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/10

---

Action brought on 28 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against Italian Republic

(Case C-302/05)

(2005/C 229/20)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Schima and D. Recchia, of its Legal Service.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | Find that, by providing that the retention of title clause must be confirmed on individual invoices for successive supplies bearing a date certain prior to the attachment and duly entered in accounting records in order to be enforceable against creditors of the purchaser, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/35/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Find that, by providing that the retention of title clause must be confirmed on individual invoices for successive supplies bearing a date certain prior to the attachment and duly entered in accounting records in order to be enforceable against creditors of the purchaser, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/35/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions;

| 2. | Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/35/EC provides that, to ensure retention of title to goods until they are fully paid for, the buyer and the seller must make an agreement to that effect before the delivery of the goods.

Article 11(3) of Legislative Decree No 231/2002 (the measure implementing Directive 2000/35/EC in Italian law) provides that the retention of title clause will be enforceable against creditors of the purchaser only if that clause is confirmed on individual invoices for successive supplies bearing a date certain prior to the attachment and duly entered in the accounting records.

Enforceability against creditors of the purchaser constitutes an essential element of the agreement for retention of title. The conditions laid down by Article 11(3) of Decree No 231/2002 create a series of additional obligations for the vendor over and above those provided for by Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/35/EC. The Commission therefore considers that those conditions are contrary to Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/35/EC.

---

(1)  OJ L 200 of 8.8.2000, p. 35.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/10

---

Action brought on 29 July 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-304/05)

(2005/C 229/21)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 July 2005 by Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. van Beek and D. Recchia, of its Legal Service.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | Declare that, in relation to the project for the extension and improvement of the Santa Caterina Valfurva ski area (the ‘Bucaneve’ and ‘Edelweiss’ pistes) and for provision of the corresponding ski facilities, with a view to the holding of the 2005 world Alpine ski championships in SPA IT 2040044 Parco Nazionale dello Stelvio, by having:






  — | allowed measures to be taken which are liable to have a significant impact on SPA IT 2040044 Parco Nazionale dello Stelvio without making such measures subject to an appropriate assessment of the impact on the site in the light of the conservation objectives for it and, in any event, without complying with the provisions which allow a project to be carried out, in the event of the conclusions of the impact assessment being negative, only in the absence of alternative solutions and only after the adoption and communication to the commission of the compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of ‘Natura 2000’ is protected; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declare that, in relation to the project for the extension and improvement of the Santa Caterina Valfurva ski area (the ‘Bucaneve’ and ‘Edelweiss’ pistes) and for provision of the corresponding ski facilities, with a view to the holding of the 2005 world Alpine ski championships in SPA IT 2040044 Parco Nazionale dello Stelvio, by having:

—

allowed measures to be taken which are liable to have a significant impact on SPA IT 2040044 Parco Nazionale dello Stelvio without making such measures subject to an appropriate assessment of the impact on the site in the light of the conservation objectives for it and, in any event, without complying with the provisions which allow a project to be carried out, in the event of the conclusions of the impact assessment being negative, only in the absence of alternative solutions and only after the adoption and communication to the commission of the compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of ‘Natura 2000’ is protected;

| — | failed to adopt measures to avoid deterioration of natural habitats and species habitats and the disturbance of species for which the SPA IT 2040044 Parco Nazionale dello Stelvio was designated; |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to adopt measures to avoid deterioration of natural habitats and species habitats and the disturbance of species for which the SPA IT 2040044 Parco Nazionale dello Stelvio was designated;

| — | failed to endow SPA IT 2040044 Parco Nazionale dello Stelvio with the legally protected status capable of guaranteeing, in particular, the survival and breeding of the species of birds mentioned in Annex I to Directive 79/409/EEC, (1) and the breeding, moulting and wintering of the migratory species not covered by Annex I which visit that locality regularly; |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to endow SPA IT 2040044 Parco Nazionale dello Stelvio with the legally protected status capable of guaranteeing, in particular, the survival and breeding of the species of birds mentioned in Annex I to Directive 79/409/EEC, (1) and the breeding, moulting and wintering of the migratory species not covered by Annex I which visit that locality regularly;

the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Articles 6(2) to (4) and 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC (2) and of Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/409/EEC;

| 2. | Order Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments are set out in the application.

---

(1)  OJ L 103 of 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992, p. 7.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/11

---

Removal from the register of Case C-326/04 (1)

(2005/C 229/22)

(Language of the case: Greek)

By order of 12 May 2005 the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-326/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 239 of 25.09.2004.

---

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/12

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 13 July 2005

in Case T-260/97 Camar Srl v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Import arrangements - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Assessment of loss)

(2005/C 229/23)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-260/97: Camar Srl, established in Florence (Italy), represented by W. Viscardini Donà, M. Paolin and S. Donà, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Council of the European Union (Agents: initially J.P. Hix and A. Tanca, subsequently J.P. Hix and F. Ruggeri Laderchi, with an address for service in Luxembourg) and the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially H. van Vliet, subsequently C. Van der Hauwaert and L. Visaggio, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by the French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Vasak, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action to determine the amount of damages which the Commission was ordered to pay the applicant following the annulment, by interlocutory judgment of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98 Camar and Tico v Commission and Council [2000] ECR II-2193, of the Commission's decision of 17 July 1997 rejecting the application by the applicant for transitional measures under Article 30 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas (OJ 1993 L 47, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Orders the Commission to pay the applicant compensation in the amount of EUR 5 024 192; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the Commission to pay the applicant compensation in the amount of EUR 5 024 192;

| 2. | Orders that that compensation figure be revalued in accordance with the criteria laid down in paragraphs 139 to 141 and 145 of this judgment; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders that that compensation figure be revalued in accordance with the criteria laid down in paragraphs 139 to 141 and 145 of this judgment;

| 3. | Orders that default interest from the date of delivery of this judgment until payment in full be added to the compensation figure, as revalued. The interest rate to be applied shall be two points above the rate set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations as applicable during the period in question; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders that default interest from the date of delivery of this judgment until payment in full be added to the compensation figure, as revalued. The interest rate to be applied shall be two points above the rate set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations as applicable during the period in question;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to pay 90 % of the costs of the stage in the present proceedings which follows the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98 Camar and Tico v Commission and Council [2000] ECR II-2193; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to pay 90 % of the costs of the stage in the present proceedings which follows the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98 Camar and Tico v Commission and Council [2000] ECR II-2193;

| 5. | Orders the Council to pay 10 % of the costs of the stage in the present proceedings which follows the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98 Camar and Tico v Commission and Council [2000] ECR II-2193; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Council to pay 10 % of the costs of the stage in the present proceedings which follows the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98 Camar and Tico v Commission and Council [2000] ECR II-2193;

| 6. | Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/12

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 18 July 2005

in Case T-241/01, Scandinavian Airlines System AB v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Competition - Cartel - Air transport - Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 - Notified agreements - Cooperation beyond the scope of the notification - Market-sharing - Fine - Guidelines for the calculation of fines - Seriousness of the infringement - Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines - Attenuating circumstances - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2005/C 229/24)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-241/01: Scandinavian Airlines System AB, established in Stockholm (Sweden), represented by M. Kofmann, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: P. Oliver and W. Wils, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of Article 2 of Commission Decision 2001/716/EC of 18 July 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (COMP.D.2 37.444 — SAS/Maersk Air and COMP.D.2 37.386 — Sun-Air versus SAS and Maersk Air) (OJ 2001 L 265, p. 15), in so far as it fixes the fine imposed on the applicant at EUR 39 375 000, and, in the alternative, an application for the reduction of that fine — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 18 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 369, de 22.12.2001

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/13

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 27 July 2005

in Joined Cases T-49/02 to T-51/02 Brassierie nationale SA (formerly Brasseries Funck-Bricher and Bofferding) and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Cartels - Luxembourg beer market - Fines)

(2005/C 229/25)

Language of the case: French

In Joined Cases T-49/02 to T-51/02: Brassierie nationale SA (formerly Brasseries Funck-Bricher and Bofferding), established in Bascharage (Luxembourg), represented by A. Carnelutti and L. Schiltz, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, Brasserie Jules Simon et Cie SCS, established in Wiltz (Luxembourg), represented by A. Carnelutti and J. Mosar, lawyers, Brasserie Battin SNC, established in Esch-sur-Alzette (Luxembourg), represented by A. Carnelutti and M. Santini, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Wils and A. Bouquet, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application, first, for annulment of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2002/759/EC of 5 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/37.800/F3 — Luxembourg Brewers) (OJ 2002 L 253, p. 21), in so far as it concerns the applicants, and, second, principally, annulment of Article 2 of that decision in so far as it imposes fines on the applicants and, in the alternative, a substantial reduction in the amount of those fines — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, N.J. Forwood and I. Pelikánová, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 109 of 4.05.2002.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/13

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 13 July 2005

in Case T-242/02, The Sunrider Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark - Word mark TOP - Refusal of registration - Article 115(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Definition of ‘written communications’ - Infringement of the principle that decisions must be adopted within a reasonable time - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94)

(2005/C 229/26)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case T-242/02: The Sunrider Corp., established in Torrance, California (United States), represented initially by M. Bra and subsequently by N. Dontas, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Waelbroeck and P. Geroukalos) — action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 May 2002 (Case R 314/1999-1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark TOP as a Community trade mark — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/14

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 13 July 2005

in Case T-40/03: Julián Murúa Entrena v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for figurative Community trade mark including the verbal element ‘Julián Murúa Entrena’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the Spanish and international work mark MURÚA - Refusal to register - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Surname)

(2005/C 229/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case T-40/03: Julián Murúa Entrena, residing in Elciego (Spain), represented by I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: I. de Medrano Caballero and G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance, being Bodegas Murúa SA — action against the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2002 (Case R 599/1999-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Bodegas Murúa SA and Julián Murúa Entrena — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/14

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 14 July 2005

in Case T-126/03 Reckitt Benckiser (España), SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Likelihood of confusion - Proof of use of earlier mark - Application for Community word mark ALADIN - Earlier national word mark ALADDIN - Articles 8(1)(b) and 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2005/C 229/28)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-126/03: Reckitt Benckiser (España), SL, established in Barcelona (Spain), represented by M. Esteve Sanz, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, I. de Medrano Caballero and A. Folliard-Monguiral), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM having been Aladin Gesellschaft für innovative mikrobiologische Systeme GmbH, established in Luckenwalde (Germany) — action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2003 (Case R 389/2002-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Reckitt Benckiser (España), SL, and Aladin Gesellschaft für innovative mikrobiologische Systeme GmbH — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and V. Vadapalas, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 31 January 2003; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 31 January 2003;

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 135 of 7.6.2003.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/15

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 14 July 2005

in Case T-312/03 Wassen International Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier national figurative mark comprising the word element ‘Selenium Spezial A-C-E’ - Application for Community word mark SELENIUM-ACE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2005/C 229/29)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-312/03: Wassen International Ltd, established in Leatherhead (United Kingdom), represented by M. Edenborough, Barrister, and S. Mayer, Solicitor, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: S. Laitinen and M. Capostagno), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal being Stroschein Gesundkost GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany) — ACTION for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2003 (Case R 121/2002-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Wassen International Ltd and Stroschein Gesundkost GmbH, — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, V. Tiili and O. Czúcz, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 264, 1.11.2003.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/15

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 14 July 2005

in Case T-371/03, Vincenzo Le Voci v Council of the European Union (1)

(Officials - Internal competition - Non-admission to the oral tests - Breach of the competition notice - Irregularity in the conduct of the tests of such a kind as to distort the results - Principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination - Principle of sound administration)

(2005/C 229/30)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-371/03: Vincenzo Le Voci, an official of the Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by G. van der Wal and E. Oude Elferink, lawyer, against Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Sims and F. Anton) — application for annulment of the procedure in internal competition Council/A/270 or, in the alternative, of the Selection Board's decision not to admit the applicant to the oral tests in that competition, — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, V. Tiili and O. Czúcz, Judges; C. Kristensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 21 of 24.1.2004.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/15

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 13 July 2005

in Case T-5/04: Carlo Scano v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Officials - Internal competition - Multiple-choice questions - Refusal by the selection board not to take account of certain questions - Equal treatment - Principle of good administration - Ambit of judicial review - Action for annulment - Action for damages)

(2005/C 229/31)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-5/04: Carlo Scano, official of the Commission of the European Communities, resident in Brussels (Belgium), represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer, against the Commission of the European Communities, (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for first, annulment of the decision of the selection board in the internal competition COM/PA/02 for advancement from category B to category A establishing the results of the applicant in the pre-selection tests and refusing to admit him to the oral test of that competition, of the subsequent confirmatory decisions, of the list of successful candidates in that competition in the field in which the applicant was assessed and of any decision adopted on that basis, and second, damages — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 59 of 6.3.2004.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/16

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 12 July 2005

in Case T-157/04 Joël De Bry v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Officials - Career development report - Appraisal exercise 2001/2002)

(2005/C 229/32)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-157/04: Joël De Bry, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Woluwé-Saint-Lambert (Belgium), represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Lozano Palacios and H. Kraemer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the decision of 26 May 2003 establishing the applicant's career development report for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002, the Court of First Instance (Single Judge: M. Pirrung); I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has delivered a judgment on 12 July 2005 in which it:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 26 May 2003 establishing the applicant's career development report for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 26 May 2003 establishing the applicant's career development report for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 168 of 26.6.2004.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/16

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 14 July 2005

in Case T-459/04, Jorge Manuel Pinheiro de Jesus Ferreira v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Community officials - Appointment - Classification in grade - Classification in a higher grade)

(2005/C 229/33)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-459/04, Jorge Manuel Pinheiro de Jesus Ferreira, official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden, lawyer, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Joris and M. Velardo, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 18 March 2004, by which it definitively classified the applicant in Grade A5, step 3 — the Court of First Instance, composed of S. Papasavvas, Judge; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

| 1) | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the application;

| 2) | Orders each party to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders each party to pay its own costs.

---

(1)  JO C 45 of 19.2.2005

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/16

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 9 June 2005

in Case T-188/02: Freiberger Lebensmittel GmbH & Co. Produktions- und Vertriebs KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2005/C 229/34)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-188/02: Freiberger Lebensmittel GmbH & Co. Produktions- und Vertriebs KG, established in Berlin, represented by K.-D. Rathke, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance, being Roberto Traiteur SASU (formerly Roberto S.A.), established in Chevilly (France), represented by R. Milchior, lawyer, — action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 February 2002 (Case R 1155/2000-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Freiberger Lebensmittel GmbH & Co. Produktions- und Vertriebs KG and Roberto S.A. — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application.

| 2. | Each of the parties shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 2002 of 24. 8. 2002.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/17

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 8 June 2005

in Case T-139/03: Nuova Agricast Srl v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Non-disclosure of document emanating from a Member State without the prior agreement of that State)

(2005/C 229/35)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-139/03: Nuova Agricast Srl, established in Cerignola (Italy), represented by M. Calabrese, lawyer, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Di Bucci and P. Aalto, assisted by A. Abate, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: initially K. Manji, subsequently C. Jackson, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of the Commission's decision refusing the applicant access to certain documents concerning a scheme of State aid declared compatible with the Common Market by the Commission's Decision of 12 July 2000 [SG (2000) D/105754 — Aid No 715/99] — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Sváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 146 of 21. 6. 2003.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/17

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 8 June 2005

in Case T-151/03 Nuova Agricast Srl v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Action devoid of purpose)

(2005/C 229/36)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-151/03: Nuova Agricast Srl, established in Cerignola (Italy), represented by M. Calabrese, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (agents: V. Di Bucci and P. Aalto, with A. Abate, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (agents: initially, K. Manji and subsequently C. Jackson, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision refusing the applicant access to a document originating from a Member State — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Sváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed;

| 2. | The applicant is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/18

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 9 June 2005

in Case T-265/03 Helm Düngemittel GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Food aid - Partial seizure of delivery guarantee - Request for repayment of the sum seized - Arbitration clause - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)

(2005/C 229/37)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-265/03: Helm Düngemittel GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany), represented by W. Waschmann, lawyer, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Berscheid and M. Niejahr, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action seeking annulment of the decision allegedly contained in a letter from the Commission of 23 May 2003 concerning the seizure of part of the delivery guarantee provided by the applicant on grounds of delay in the delivery of fertilizer supplied as part of a food aid action for the benefit of North Korea carried out pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2519/97 of 16 December 1997 laying down general rules for the mobilisation of products to be supplied under Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/96 as Community food aid (OJ 1997 L 346, p. 23) — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, J. Azizi and E. Cremona, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The application is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicant shall bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 239 of 4.10.2003.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/18

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 29 June 2005

in Case T-274/03: Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to proceed to judgment)

(2005/C 229/38)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-274/03: Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH, established in Munich (Germany), represented by U. Gürtler, lawyer, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: B. Müller and A. Folliard-Monguiral), the other party before the Board of Appeal of OHIM and intervener before the Court of First Instance being France Télécom SA, established in Paris (France), represented by D. Marty, lawyer — against brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2003 (Case R 849/2001-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH and France Télécom SA — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, V. Tiili and O. Czúcz, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 29 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application.

| 2. | The parties shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/18

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 8 June 2005

in Case T-287/03 Società imballaggi metallici Salerno Srl (SIMSA) v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - No disclosure of a document emanating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State)

(2005/C 229/39)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-287/03: Società imballaggi metallici Salerno Srl (SIMSA), established in Portici (Italy), represented by M. Calabrese, lawyer, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Di Bucci and P. Aalto) — Application for the annulment of the Commission decision refusing the applicant access to certain documents concerning a State aid scheme declared compatible with the common market by the Commission decision of 12 July 2000 [SG (2000) D105754 — Aid No 715/99] — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Švaby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The application is dismissed |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed

| 2. | Each party is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 239 of 4. 10. 2003

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/19

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 8 June 2005

in Case T-295/03 Poli Sud Srl v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - No disclosure of a document originating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State)

(2005/C 229/40)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-295/03: Poli Sud Srl, established in Lamezia Terme (Italy), represented by M. Calabrese, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (agents: V. Di Bucci and P. Aalto, with A. Abate, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision refusing the applicant access to certain documents relating to a State aid scheme declared compatible with the common market by Commission decision of 12 July 2000 (SG (2000) D/105754 — State Aid N 715/99) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Sváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed;

| 2. | Each party is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/19

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 8 June 2005

in Case T-297/03 Tomasetto Achille Sas di Tomasetto Andrea & C. v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - No disclosure of a document originating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State)

(2005/C 229/41)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-297/03: Tomasetto Achille Sas di Tomasetto Andrea & C., established in Castegnero (Italy), represented by M. Calabrese, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (agents: V. Di Bucci and P. Aalto, with A. Abate, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision refusing the applicant access to certain documents relating to a State aid scheme declared compatible with the common market by Commission decision of 12 July 2000 (SG (2000) D/105754 — State Aid N 715/99) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Sváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed;

| 2. | Each party is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/20

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 8 June 2005

in Case T-298/03 Lavorazione Cuoio e Pelli Bieffe Srl v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - No disclosure of a document originating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State)

(2005/C 229/42)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-298/03: Lavorazione Cuoio e Pelli Bieffe Srl, established in San Miniato (Italy), represented by M. Calabrese, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (agents: V. Di Bucci and P. Aalto, with A. Abate, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision refusing the applicant access to certain documents relating to a State aid scheme declared compatible with the common market by Commission decision of 12 July 2000 (SG (2000) D/105754 — State Aid N 715/99) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Sváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed;

| 2. | Each party is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/20

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 8 June 2005

in Case T-299/03 Nuova fabbrica utensili diamantati Srl (Nuova Fa. U. Di) v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - No disclosure of a document originating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State)

(2005/C 229/43)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-299/03: Nuova fabbrica utensili diamantati Srl (Nuova Fa. U. Di), established in Marcellina (Italy), represented by M. Calabrese, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (agents: V. Di Bucci and P. Aalto, with A. Abate, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision refusing the applicant access to certain documents relating to a State aid scheme declared compatible with the common market by Commission decision of 12 July 2000 (SG (2000) D/105754 — State Aid N 715/99) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Sváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed;

| 2. | Each party is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/20

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 11 July 2005

in Case T-13/04: Jens-Peter Bonde and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (1)

(Regulation on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding - Action for annulment - Objection as to admissibility - Challengeable act - Standing to bring proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2005/C 229/44)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-13/04: Jens-Peter Bonde, residing in Bagsværd (Denmark), Inger Schörling, residing in Gärle (Sweden), Paul-Marie Coûteaux, residing in Mirbeau (France), Nigel Paul Farage, residing in Westerham (United Kindgom), William Abitbol, residing in Paris (France), Bent Hindrup Andersen, residing in Horsens (Denmark), Graham H. Booth, residing in Paignton (United Kingdom), Florence Kuntz, residing in Lyons (France), Ulla Margrethe Sandbæk, residing in Birkerød (Denmark), Jeffrey William Titford, residing in Frinton-on-Sea (United Kingdom), Per Gahrton, residing in Täby (Sweden), Herman Schmid, residing in Copenhagen (Denmark), Jonas Sjöstedt, residing in Umeå (Sweden), Pernille Frahm, residing in Sdr Bjert (Denmark), Roger Helmer, residing in Lutterworth (United Kingdom), Daniel J. Hannan, residing in Great Bookham (United Kingdom), Georges Berthu, residing in Longré (France), Dominique F.C. Souchet, residing in Saint-Gemme la Plaine (France), Thierry de La Perrière, residing in Luc-sur-Mer (France), Hans Kronberger, residing in Vienna (Austria), Jean-Louis Bernie, residing in Nantes (France), Yves Butel, residing in Amiens (France), Ole Krarup, residing in Elsinore (Denmark), represented by J. Dhont, lawyer, against European Parliament (Agents: H. Krück, N. Lorenz and D. Moore, with an address for service in Luxembourg) and Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Sims and I. Díez Parra) — application for annulment of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (OJ 2003 L 297, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 11 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicants shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 71 of 20.3.2004.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/21

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 11 July 2005

in Case T-17/04 Front national and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (1)

(Regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding - Action for annulment - Objection of inadmissibility - Act against which proceedings may be brought - Locus standi - Inadmissibility)

(2005/C 229/45)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-17/04: Front national, established in Saint-Cloud (France), Marie-France Stirbois, residing at Villeneuve-Loubey (France), Bruno Gollnisch, residing at Limonest (France), Carl Lang, residing at Boulogne-Billancourt (France), Jean-Claude Martinez, residing at Montpellier (France), Philip Claeys, residing at Overijse (Belgium), Koen Dillen, residing at Antwerp (Belgium), Mario Borghezio, residing at Turin (Italy), represented by W. de Saint-Just, lawyer, against European Parliament (agents: MM. H. Krück, N. Lorenz and D. Moore, with an address for service in Luxembourg), and Council of the European Union (agents: M. Sims and. I. Díez Parra) — application for the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (OJ 2002 L 297, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 11 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | the applicants are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

the applicants are ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 71 of 20.3.2004.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/21

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 20 June 2005

in Case T-138/04 Cementir — Cementerie del Tirreno SpA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Action for annulment of a Commission letter determining the amount of interest for delay applicable to a fine imposed on the applicant - Meaning of a measure confirming an earlier measure - Admissibility)

(2005/C 229/46)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-138/04: Cementir — Cementerie del Tirreno SpA, established in Rome (Italy), represented by D. Fosselard and P. Fattori, lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and V. Di Bucci) — Application for the annulment of the Commission's letter of 28 January 2004 determining the amount of interest for delay applicable to a fine imposed on the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 20 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The application is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicant is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118 of 30. 4. 2004

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/22

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 11 July 2005

in Case T-40/04 Emma Bonino and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (1)

(Regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding - Action for annulment - Objection of inadmissibility - Act against which proceedings may be brought - Locus standi - Inadmissibility)

(2005/C 229/47)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-40/04: Emma Bonino, residing at Rome (Italy), Marco Cappato, residing at Vedano al Lambro (Italy), Gianfranco Dell'Alba, residing at Livorno (Italy), Benedetto Della Vedova, residing at Tirano (Italy), Olivier Depuis, residing at Rome, Marco Pannella, residing at Rome, Maurizio Turco, residing at Pulsano (Italy), Liste Emma Bonino, established at Rome, represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, against European Parliament (agents: H. Krück, N. Lorenz and D. Moore, with an address for service in Luxembourg), and Council of the European Union (agents: M. Sims and I. Díez Parra) — application for the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (OJ 2002 L 297, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 11 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | The applicants are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 94 of 17.4.2004.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/22

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 15 June 2005

in Case T-98/04 Nuova Agricast Srl and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Action for annulment - Admissibility - Time-limits - Point when time starts to run - Publication - Internet site)

(2005/C 229/48)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-98/04: Nuova Agricast Srl, established in Cerignola (Italy), Società imballaggi metallici Salerno Srl (SIMSA), established in Portici (Italy), Poli Sud Srl, established in Lamezia Terme (Italy), Tomasetto Achille Sas di Tomasetto Andrea & C., established in Castegnero (Italy), Nuova fabbrica utensili diamantati Srl (Nuova Faudi), established in Marcellina (Italy), Cofra Srl, established in Barletta (Italy), Lavorazione cuoio e pelli Bieffe Srl, established in San Miniato (Italy), represented by M. Calabrese, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (agent: V. Di Bucci, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 12 July 2000 declaring compatible with the common market a scheme for aid for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy (State Aid N 715/99 –Italy (SG (2000) D/105754) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Sváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/22

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 28 June 2005

in Case T-147/04: Brian Ross v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Officials - Action for annulment and for damages - Career development report - Total and permanent invalidity - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2005/C 229/49)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-147/04: Brian Ross, resident in Morpeth (United Kingdom), represented by É. Boigelot, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Curall and G. Berscheid, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for, first, the annulment of the applicant's career development report for the assessment year 2001/2002 and second, damages — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, V. Tiili and O. Czúcz, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 28 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The parties shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 168 of 26.6.2004.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/23

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 12 July 2005

in Case T-163/04: Michael Schäfer v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for restitutio in integrum - Appeal before a Board of Appeal - Costs of proceedings - Apportionment)

(2005/C 229/50)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-163/04: Michael Schäfer, residing in Bergisch-Gladbach (Germany), represented by I. Reese, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance, being KoKa Verwaltung GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany), represented by T.E. Lampel, lawyer — action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 December 2003 (Case R 93/2003-2) in so far as that decision orders that the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal be apportioned — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Lindh and V. Vadapalas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 12 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | The applicant shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251 of 9.10.2004.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/23

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 11 July 2005

in Case T-294/04 Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Reimbursement of costs relating to procedures before the European Ombudsman - Action manifestly unfounded)

(2005/C 229/51)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-294/04: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV, established in Rosbach (Germany), represented by H. Kaltenecker, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and S. Fries, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered in the form of lawyer's fees incurred in three procedures before the European Ombudsman — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, J. Azizi and E. Cremona, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 11 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law;

| 2. | The applicant shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/24

---

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 5 July 2005

in Case T-117/05 R: Andreas Rodenbröker v Commission of the European Communities

(Application for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Directive 92/43/EEC - Urgency - None)

(2005/C 229/52)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-117/05 R: Andreas Rodenbröker, residing in Hövelhof (Germany), and the 81 other applicants whose names are set out in an annex to the order, represented by H. Glatzel, lawyer, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. van Beek and B. Schima, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for suspension of further implementation of Commission Decision 2004/813/EC of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region (OJ 2004 L 387, p. 1) — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on 5 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/24

---

Action brought on 13 June 2005 by Javier Maria Vega Bordell against the European Parliament

(Case T-228/05)

(2005/C 229/53)

Language of the case: French

An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 June 2005 by Javier Maria Vega Bordell, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the decision appointing the applicant as an official of the European Communities insofar as it fixes his grade on recruitment by application of Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the decision appointing the applicant as an official of the European Communities insofar as it fixes his grade on recruitment by application of Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

| 2. | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are identical to those raised in Case T-130/05, Albert-Bousquet and Others v Commission
   (1), and certain pleas in law and main arguments raised are similar to those in Case T-58/05, Centeno Mediavilla and Others v Commission
   (2).

---

(1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005, p. 31.

(2)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005, p. 38.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/24

---

Action brought on 15 June 2005 by Trevor Hutchings against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-232/05)

(2005/C 229/54)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 June 2005 by Trevor Hutchings, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin Membiela, Albert Coolen and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the Commission's decision fixing the applicant's classification in Grade B*4/Step 1; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the Commission's decision fixing the applicant's classification in Grade B*4/Step 1;

| 2. | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Commission's decision to recruit him at Grade B*4 instead of B3 (B*7) as stated in the Commission's initial offer of recruitment. He relies on infringement of pacta sunt servanda, the Commission having unilaterally altered an essential component of his contract of employment.

The applicant also claims infringement of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, and the protection of legitimate expectations, and an infringement of the call for applications.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/25

---

Action brought on 4 July 2005 by Q against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-252/05)

(2005/C 229/55)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 July 2005 by Q, residing in Brussels, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues and Yola Minatchy, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | to the extent necessary, annul the decision of 29 March 2005 by which the Commission dismissed the applicant's complaint, brought on 29 November 2004, against the its implied refusals of the request of 29 April 2004, pursuant to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, for assistance and protection from bullying and claim for damages, and the requests for the adoption of immediate preventive measures of 7 May 2004 and 24 May 2004; |
| --- | --- |

1.

to the extent necessary, annul the decision of 29 March 2005 by which the Commission dismissed the applicant's complaint, brought on 29 November 2004, against the its implied refusals of the request of 29 April 2004, pursuant to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, for assistance and protection from bullying and claim for damages, and the requests for the adoption of immediate preventive measures of 7 May 2004 and 24 May 2004;

| 2. | annul the Commission's decision of 4 May 2005 in reply to the applicant's claim of 20 December 2004 and the Career Development Report in respect of the applicant for the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003; |
| --- | --- |

2.

annul the Commission's decision of 4 May 2005 in reply to the applicant's claim of 20 December 2004 and the Career Development Report in respect of the applicant for the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003;

| 3. | hold the European Community non-contractually liable on account of the contested decision and the drawing up of the applicant's Career Development Report; |
| --- | --- |

3.

hold the European Community non-contractually liable on account of the contested decision and the drawing up of the applicant's Career Development Report;

| 4. | award the applicant compensation in the amount of EUR 250 000 for damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

4.

award the applicant compensation in the amount of EUR 250 000 for damage suffered;

| 5. | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official at the Commission, claims to be a victim of bullying by her superiors which consisted of isolating her professionally, discrediting her and damaging her health by psychologically destabilising her.

By these proceedings she challenges, first, the Commission's implied refusal of her request for assistance and protection from bullying pursuant to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and, second, her Career Development Report for the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003.

The applicant also claims an infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, together with infringement of the duty to render assistance, the duty of sound administration and the duty to pay due regard to the welfare of employees.

As regards the Career Development Report, she claims manifest errors of assessment and an infringement of procedural rules.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/25

---

Action brought on 4 July 2005 by José Fernandez Tunon against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-253/05)

(2005/C 229/56)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 July 2005 by José Fernandez Tunon, resident in Beersel (Belgium), represented Lucas Vogel, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 (notified on 22 March 2005 and received on 24 March 2005) by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 23 November 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract signed on 23 August 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 (notified on 22 March 2005 and received on 24 March 2005) by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 23 November 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract signed on 23 August 2004;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract signed on 23 August 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract signed on 23 August 2004;

| — | order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, formerly of the auxiliary staff (Category D, Group VIII, Grade 4) who, following his appointment as a member of the contract staff, had his remuneration reduced whilst his duties remained unchanged, challenges the decision of the administrative authority fixing his grade and remuneration as a member of the contract staff, in Function Group I, grade 1, step 1.

The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in support of his application:

| — | infringement of Articles 3a(1)(a) and Article 80(2) and (3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (CEOS) and a manifest error of assessment in that the applicant, at the time of his appointment as a member of the contract staff, was graded in a function group which is not commensurate with the description of his qualifications or the actual tasks to which he is assigned; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Articles 3a(1)(a) and Article 80(2) and (3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (CEOS) and a manifest error of assessment in that the applicant, at the time of his appointment as a member of the contract staff, was graded in a function group which is not commensurate with the description of his qualifications or the actual tasks to which he is assigned;

| — | infringement of Article 80(3) of the CEOS in the procedure followed to select posts likely to be filled by contract staff and to define the function groups to which those posts would be assigned, in that that work was carried out by a task force, the composition and method of operation of which have not been disclosed and cannot be verified, whereas the Staff Regulations require that the Staff Regulations Committee be consulted; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 80(3) of the CEOS in the procedure followed to select posts likely to be filled by contract staff and to define the function groups to which those posts would be assigned, in that that work was carried out by a task force, the composition and method of operation of which have not been disclosed and cannot be verified, whereas the Staff Regulations require that the Staff Regulations Committee be consulted;

| — | infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, in that, because of the contested decision, the applicant has been required to perform the same functions as those to which he been assigned earlier, for much lower remuneration and in a context of total uncertainty, whereas identical functions are performed within the Commission by Community officials enjoying the benefits of the Staff Regulations, a high degree of security of employment and considerably higher remuneration. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, in that, because of the contested decision, the applicant has been required to perform the same functions as those to which he been assigned earlier, for much lower remuneration and in a context of total uncertainty, whereas identical functions are performed within the Commission by Community officials enjoying the benefits of the Staff Regulations, a high degree of security of employment and considerably higher remuneration.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/26

---

Action brought on 6 July 2005 by Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie e.V. Deutsche Gruppe der EURIMA — European Insulation Manufacturers Association against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-254/05)

(2005/C 229/57)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 July 2005 by Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie e.V. Deutsche Gruppe der EURIMA — European Insulation Manufacturers, Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by T. Schmidt-Kötters, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission's decision of 11 February 2005 on State aid N 260b/2004 — Germany — Extension of the support programme on insulating material from renewable raw materials (State aid N 694/2002 — Germany); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission's decision of 11 February 2005 on State aid N 260b/2004 — Germany — Extension of the support programme on insulating material from renewable raw materials (State aid N 694/2002 — Germany);

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant objects to the Commission's decision of 11 February 2005 in Case C(2005) 379 on State aid N 260/b/2004 — Germany. In the contested decision the Commission considered the extension of the support programme on insulating material from renewable raw materials (State aid N 694/2002) to be compatible with the EC Treaty.

The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC since no reasons are given as to why the measure is clearly beneficial to the environment. In addition, the applicant complains that the contested decision does not address the arguments regarding the original decision raised in the proceedings pending before the Court of First Instance.

The applicant claims furthermore that the contested decision refers to an original decision which is invalid because it infringes essential procedural requirements.

The applicant, further submits that, in considering the measure to be clearly beneficial to the environment and thus compatible with the common market in accordance with Article 87(3)(c) EC, the Commission's decision is based on an inadequate establishment of the facts.

Finally, the applicant complains that the contested decision discriminates against the insulating material referred to by the Commission as ‘traditional’, in particular mineral fibre insulation material, and also insulating material from renewable raw materials which do not possess the natureplus quality mark, without any objective reason. According to the applicant, the decision thereby infringes the principle of proportionality and the principle of non-discrimination and is thus contrary to fundamental principles of Community law.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/27

---

Action brought on 1 July 2005 by Fernanda Ehrhardt-Avancini against the European Parliament

(Case T-256/05)

(2005/C 229/58)

Language of the case: French

An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 July 2005 by Fernanda Ehrhardt-Avancini, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Chiara Ronzi, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the Parliament's decision rejecting the claim for restitution of the financial and/or other value of 207 hours 30 minutes which were deducted from her annual leave and then from her salary/pension; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the Parliament's decision rejecting the claim for restitution of the financial and/or other value of 207 hours 30 minutes which were deducted from her annual leave and then from her salary/pension;

| 2. | award default interest; |
| --- | --- |

2.

award default interest;

| 3. | order the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

At the time the relevant facts arose, the applicant was an official at the European Parliament. The European Parliament sent a letter on 21 July 2004 informing her that 207 hours and 30 minutes would be deducted from her annual leave on account of her absence on medical grounds from 28 May to 11 July 2004. The Parliament's decision was made as a result of the findings of an examination of the applicant by an independent doctor, in accordance with Article 59 of the Staff Regulations, which indicated that the applicant was fit to return to her duties. A subsequent claim by the applicant seeking the restitution of the financial and/or other value of the hours deducted was also rejected by the Parliament.

In support of her application, the applicant claims the infringement of Article 59 of the Staff Regulations and the internal rules of the Parliament on the ground that she was subjected to an examination by an independent doctor without a prior medical examination by the institution's medical officer. She also claims the infringement of the duty to give a statement of reasons, the rights of the defence and the principle ‘patere quam ipse legem fecisti’.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/27

---

Action brought on 30 June 2005 by Eric Voigt against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-258/05)

(2005/C 229/59)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 June 2005 by Eric Voigt, residing in Orange (France), represented by Bernard Autric, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | order the European Commission to accept his claim of 11.07.2002 for recognition of his illness as an occupational disease; |
| --- | --- |

1.

order the European Commission to accept his claim of 11.07.2002 for recognition of his illness as an occupational disease;

| 2. | order the Commission to pay interest from 28.05.2004; |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Commission to pay interest from 28.05.2004;

| 3. | order the European Commission to answer his questions of 20.01.2004 sent to the Office of Investigation and Discipline (IDOC); |
| --- | --- |

3.

order the European Commission to answer his questions of 20.01.2004 sent to the Office of Investigation and Discipline (IDOC);

| 4. | order the Commission to give the reason for its decision to withdraw the decision initiating disciplinary proceedings against an official (Mr C); |
| --- | --- |

4.

order the Commission to give the reason for its decision to withdraw the decision initiating disciplinary proceedings against an official (Mr C);

| 5. | order the payment of damages and interest in the amount of EUR 1 000 000; |
| --- | --- |

5.

order the payment of damages and interest in the amount of EUR 1 000 000;

| 6. | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

6.

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the recognition of his psychological and emotional problems as an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations. He claims infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, together with the infringement of rights of the defence, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, transparency and legal certainty. He also claims a procedural error.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/28

---

Action brought on 14 July 2005 by Peter Strobl against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-260/05)

(2005/C 229/60)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 July 2005 by Peter Strobl, residing in Greifenberg-Beuern (Germany), represented by H.-J. Rüber, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of the Commission of 7 October 2004 with regard to the inclusion of the applicant in grade A*6; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of the Commission of 7 October 2004 with regard to the inclusion of the applicant in grade A*6;

| 2. | declare that the appointment must be made at grade A*10; |
| --- | --- |

2.

declare that the appointment must be made at grade A*10;

| 3. | in the alternative, declare that the appointment must be made at grade A*8; |
| --- | --- |

3.

in the alternative, declare that the appointment must be made at grade A*8;

| 4. | in the alternative, declare that the appointment must be made at grade A*7; |
| --- | --- |

4.

in the alternative, declare that the appointment must be made at grade A*7;

| 5. | order the Commission to place the applicant in the financial position he would be in if he had been correctly classified, i.e. pay the difference; |
| --- | --- |

5.

order the Commission to place the applicant in the financial position he would be in if he had been correctly classified, i.e. pay the difference;

| 6. | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

6.

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant contests his appointment at grade A*6 upon recruitment by the defendant in October 2004.

The applicant bases his claim on three grounds. Firstly, he submits that there is infringement of the principle of legitimate expectation. In the applicant's view, the notice itself, the procedure followed on similar notices and the rules of the old Staff Regulations in force at the time of the notice raised in the applicant the well-founded expectation that, were he to be recruited, it would be at grade A7/A6 or their equivalent under the new Staff Regulations, namely grades A*8 or A*10 in accordance with Article 12 of Annex XIII. His recruitment at grade A*6 on the basis of Article 12 of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations was unlawful. The consequence to the applicant of the application of the new Staff Regulations by the Appointing Authority is an infringement of the general requirement of transparency, fails to satisfy the requirement of certainty and does not comply with the principle that measures should not be retroactive.

As the second ground of his complaint, the applicant submits that there is discrimination against him because of his age. His classification at grade A*6 ought to have been made without any reference to the age of the applicant.

Finally, the applicant submits that application of Article 12 of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations leads to inequality of treatment of the applicant in comparison with colleagues from other selection competitions and in other job placements who are placed in a higher grade.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/29

---

Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Frank Sliggers against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-261/05)

(2005/C 229/61)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2005 by Frank Sliggers, resident in Schilde (Belgium), represented Lucas Vogel, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 14 December 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 14 September 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 14 December 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 14 September 2004;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as a contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 14 September 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as a contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 14 September 2004;

| — | order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those put forward in Case T-253/05 Fernandez Tunon v Commission.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/29

---

Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Johan Maes against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-265/05)

(2005/C 229/62)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2005 by Johan Maes, resident in Sterrebeek-Zaventem (Belgium), represented Lucas Vogel, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 3 December 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 3 December 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

| — | order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those put forward in Case T-253/05 Fernandez Tunon v Commission.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/29

---

Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Elisabeth De Smedt against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-267/05)

(2005/C 229/63)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2005 by Elisabeth De Smedt, resident in Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented Lucas Vogel, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005, by which it dismissed the applicant's application, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in her capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract signed on 23 August 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005, by which it dismissed the applicant's application, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in her capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract signed on 23 August 2004;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in her capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract signed on 23 August 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in her capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract signed on 23 August 2004;

| — | order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those put forward in Case T-253/05 Fernandez Tunon v Commission.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/30

---

Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Patrice Vande Velde against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-268/05)

(2005/C 229/64)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2005 by Patrice Vande Velde, resident in Linkebeek (Belgium), represented Lucas Vogel, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 25 November 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 25 November 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as a contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as a contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

| — | order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those put forward in Case T-253/05 Fernandez Tunon v Commission.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/30

---

Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Raffaele Dalmasso against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-269/05)

(2005/C 229/65)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2005 by Raffaele Dalmasso, resident in Schaerbeek (Belgium), represented Lucas Vogel, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 7 December 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 7 December 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as a contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as a contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

| — | order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those put forward in Case T-253/05 Fernandez Tunon v Commission.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/31

---

Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Matthias Ghem against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-270/05)

(2005/C 229/66)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2005 by Matthias Ghem, resident in Woluwé-Saint-Pierre (Belgium), represented Lucas Vogel, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 24 November 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 24 November 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as a contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as a contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

| — | order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those put forward in Case T-253/05 Fernandez Tunon v Commission.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/31

---

Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Miriam Arana de la Cal against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-271/05)

(2005/C 229/67)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2005 by Miriam Arana de la Cal, resident in Saint-Gilles (Belgium), represented Lucas Vogel, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 30 November 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in her capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 30 November 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in her capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in her capacity as a contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in her capacity as a contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

| — | order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those put forward in Case T-253/05 Fernandez Tunon v Commission.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/32

---

Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Stéphane Veramme against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-272/05)

(2005/C 229/68)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2005 by Stéphane Veramme, resident in Auderghem (Belgium), represented Lucas Vogel, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 10 December 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 10 December 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as a contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as a contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

| — | order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those put forward in Case T-253/05 Fernandez Tunon v Commission.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/32

---

Action brought on 12 July 2005 by Paulo Sequeira Wandschneider against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-282/05)

(2005/C 229/69)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 12 July 2005 by Paulo Sequeira Wandschneider, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Chiara Ronzi, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the Career Development Report for the reference period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the Career Development Report for the reference period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003;

| 2. | to the extent necessary, annul the decision rejecting the applicant's complaint brought on 2 December 2004; |
| --- | --- |

2.

to the extent necessary, annul the decision rejecting the applicant's complaint brought on 2 December 2004;

| 3. | order the defendant to pay fair compensation for material and non-material suffered, estimated, subject to certification, at EUR 2 500; |
| --- | --- |

3.

order the defendant to pay fair compensation for material and non-material suffered, estimated, subject to certification, at EUR 2 500;

| 4. | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas and principal arguments relied on by the applicant are identical to those in Case T-110/04 Sequeira Wandschneider v Commission
   (1).

---

(1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004, p. 86.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/33

---

Action brought on 13 July 2005 by Daniele Baraldi and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-283/05)

(2005/C 229/70)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 July 2005 by Daniele Baraldi, resident in Alkmaar (Netherlands), Jacobus De Bruijn, resident in Ispra (Italy), and Christel Schilleger-Musset, resident in Brebbia (Italy), represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the grade classification laid down for the applicants in the decisions relating to their recruitment in so far as that classification is based on Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the grade classification laid down for the applicants in the decisions relating to their recruitment in so far as that classification is based on Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations;

| — | consequently, reconstruct the applicants' career bracket (including the assessment of their experience in the grade thereby rectified, and of their promotion and pension rights, which were determined, in particular, in accordance with Article 21 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations), to reflect the grade in which they should have been appointed on the basis of the notice of competition pursuant to which they were placed on the recruitment reserve list, either that stated in the competition notice, or in the equivalent grade in accordance with the new Staff Regulations (and in the appropriate step in accordance with the rules applicable before 1 May 2004), as from the appointment decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, reconstruct the applicants' career bracket (including the assessment of their experience in the grade thereby rectified, and of their promotion and pension rights, which were determined, in particular, in accordance with Article 21 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations), to reflect the grade in which they should have been appointed on the basis of the notice of competition pursuant to which they were placed on the recruitment reserve list, either that stated in the competition notice, or in the equivalent grade in accordance with the new Staff Regulations (and in the appropriate step in accordance with the rules applicable before 1 May 2004), as from the appointment decision;

| — | award the applicants payment of default interest, on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank, on the total sum corresponding to the difference between the salary for the grade laid down in the recruitment decision and that for the grade to which they should have been entitled up to the date of the decision as to their correct grade; |
| --- | --- |

—

award the applicants payment of default interest, on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank, on the total sum corresponding to the difference between the salary for the grade laid down in the recruitment decision and that for the grade to which they should have been entitled up to the date of the decision as to their correct grade;

| — | order the Commission to pay the entire costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and the main arguments raised by the applicants are identical to those raised in Case T-58/05 Centeno Mediavilla and Others v Commission
   (1).

---

(1)  OJ C 93 of 13.4.2005, p. 38.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/33

---

Action brought on 14 July 2005 against the Commission of the European Communities by Christos Michail

(Case T-284/05)

(2005/C 229/71)

Language of the case: Greek

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 July 2005 by Christos Michail, resident in Brussels, Belgium, represented by Charalambos Meidanis, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested acts/decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested acts/decisions;

| — | order that financial reparation be made for non-material damage in the amount of EUR 90 000 (ninety thousand); |
| --- | --- |

—

order that financial reparation be made for non-material damage in the amount of EUR 90 000 (ninety thousand);

| — | make an order as to costs as laid down by law. |
| --- | --- |

—

make an order as to costs as laid down by law.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is a Commission official, seeks the annulment of his career development report for the period from 1.4.2003 to 31.12.2003 and an order that financial reparation be made for the non-material damage which he claims to have suffered. He claims in support of his application that the report in question did not contain a description of his post, since, moreover, as he claims, during the period in question he simply did not occupy any post. He also claims that the report in question did not even contain a description of his individual objective goals to be attained and did not contain any reasoning for the points he was given; it was drawn up by a body and person having no competence to do so; it was not drawn up on the basis of his actual work but was based on the assessments of an earlier staff report. In the light of all the foregoing the applicant claims that there was infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and all the implementing provisions, infringement of Article 12a of those Staff Regulations, which refers to psychological harassment, manifest error of assessment as regards the facts, non-existent or otherwise insufficient reasons for the acts challenged, misuse of powers on the part of the Commission and infringement of the principle of fair and equal treatment of staff and the principle of sound administration.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/34

---

Action brought on 19 July 2005 by Bernd Lippert against the European Parliament

(Case T-285/05)

(2005/C 229/72)

Language of the case: French

An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19 July 2005 by Bernd Lippert, residing in Helmsange (Luxembourg), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the decision appointing the applicant as an official of the European Communities insofar as it fixes his grade on recruitment by application of Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the decision appointing the applicant as an official of the European Communities insofar as it fixes his grade on recruitment by application of Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

| 2. | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those raised in Case T-130/05, Albert-Bousquet and Others v Commission. (1)

---

(1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005, p. 31.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/34

---

Action brought on 18 July 2005 by the Centre Européen pour la Statistique et le Développement A.s.b.l. (C.E.S.D.) against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-286/05)

(2005/C 229/73)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 July 2005 by the Centre Européen pour la Statistique et le Développement A.s.b.l. (C.E.S.D.), established in Luxembourg, represented by D. Grisay, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that the Commission's decision of 18 May 2005 is void on the ground that it results from misuse of powers, and/or that it is vitiated by failure to state reasons and manifest error of assessment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that the Commission's decision of 18 May 2005 is void on the ground that it results from misuse of powers, and/or that it is vitiated by failure to state reasons and manifest error of assessment;

| 2. | alternatively, declare that the said decision is void, in so far as it concerns the 25 contracts not covered by the audit; |
| --- | --- |

2.

alternatively, declare that the said decision is void, in so far as it concerns the 25 contracts not covered by the audit;

| 3. | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following the irregularities found within DG-EUROSTAT, the Commission adopted the contested decision by which it instructed the delegated authorising officers to terminate as soon as possible, in accordance with the procedures provided for by the contracts, all contractual relationships with certain entities, including the applicant.

In support of its action, the applicant alleges misuse of the Commission's powers, on the ground that the contested decision evades the particular dispute resolution procedures provided for by each contract and substitutes for them the unilateral method of a decision based on Article 93(1)(f) of Regulation No 1605/2002. (1) The applicant relies, in the same context, on the contested decision's alleged failure to state reasons.

The applicant also pleads the contested decision's manifest error of assessment, in the characterisation of the facts alleged against it as a serious breach of contract, in the terms of Article 93(1)(f) of Regulation No 1605/2002.

Finally, the applicant alleges that the contested decision is based on an audit concerning only one of the contracts concluded between it and the Commission and that, therefore, it is vitiated by failure to state reasons, at least in so far as the 25 other contracts not covered by the audit are concerned.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ of 16.9.2002, p. 1.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/35

---

Action brought on 15 July 2005 by Idoia Bengoa Geisler and two other officials against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

(Case T-287/05)

(2005/C 229/74)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Court of Justice of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 July 2005 by Idoia Bengoa Geisler, Cristina López Roca and Maria Manuela Farrajota, resident in Luxembourg, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the decisions to appoint the applicants officials of the European Communities in so far as those decisions fix their recruitment grade pursuant to Articles 12 and 13 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the decisions to appoint the applicants officials of the European Communities in so far as those decisions fix their recruitment grade pursuant to Articles 12 and 13 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, officials of the Court of Justice recruited after 1 May 2004 as successful candidates in the competitions for which the notices had been published before that date, challenge the alleged discrimination resulting from the fact that the conditions under which they have been graded, in accordance with Article 12 of Annex XIII to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials, are different to those of successful candidates in the same competitions recruited before that amendment to the Staff Regulations. They submit, in support of their application, the same pleas in law and arguments as those adduced in Case T-130/05 (1).

---

(1)  OJ C 93 of 16.4.2005, p. 38.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/35

---

Action brought on 20 July 2005 by Harald Mische against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-288/05)

(2005/C 229/75)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 2005 by Harald Mische, resident in Brussels (Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | grant the cancellation of the grading given in the recruitment decision dated 11 November 2004 of the Appointing Authority to grade the applicant on his recruitment to DG Competition as junior lawyer at grade A*6, step 2, implying the reinstatement of all his rights as deriving from a legal and regular employment, i.e. a legal and regular grading as of 16 November 2004, which means at minimum an A7/3 grading (valid as of 1 November 2003) or its equivalent according to Articles 1-11 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulation (A*8/3); |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the cancellation of the grading given in the recruitment decision dated 11 November 2004 of the Appointing Authority to grade the applicant on his recruitment to DG Competition as junior lawyer at grade A*6, step 2, implying the reinstatement of all his rights as deriving from a legal and regular employment, i.e. a legal and regular grading as of 16 November 2004, which means at minimum an A7/3 grading (valid as of 1 November 2003) or its equivalent according to Articles 1-11 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulation (A*8/3);

| — | grant the award of damages ‘intérêts de retard’, compensation for his prejudice to his career, and other damages in form of a legal and regular pay, notably the application of the transitional provision contained in Article 21 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulation in force as of 1 May 2004 or, alternatively, the lowering of contributions to the pension scheme based on the principle of equal pay. These rights will have to be duly evaluated at a later stage and are now evaluated, provisionally and ex aequo et bono, at a minimum of EUR 10 000 per year; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the award of damages ‘intérêts de retard’, compensation for his prejudice to his career, and other damages in form of a legal and regular pay, notably the application of the transitional provision contained in Article 21 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulation in force as of 1 May 2004 or, alternatively, the lowering of contributions to the pension scheme based on the principle of equal pay. These rights will have to be duly evaluated at a later stage and are now evaluated, provisionally and ex aequo et bono, at a minimum of EUR 10 000 per year;

| — | order that the Commission pays all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the Commission pays all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant participated in competition PE/96/A published on 23 May 2002. He succeeded the competition and was put on the reserve list on 27 May 2004. During this period, the applicant had started working for the Commission, first as temporary agent in grade A7, then as auxiliary agent in grade B. Following the competition, the applicant was recruited by the European Parliament with effect from 16 November 2004 and transferred to the Commission. The applicant was then graded in grade A*6.

The applicant states that he seeks equal treatment compared to officials recruited between June 2003 and end of April 2004. In support of his application, the applicant invokes the illegality of Article 12 of Annex XIII to the revised Staff Regulations. According to the applicant, that article violates the principle of equal treatment and of non discrimination, Article 31 of the revised Staff Regulations, Article 5 of the revised Staff Regulations together with the principle of equal treatment and non discrimination, the principle of equivalence of position and grades, Article 7 (1) of the Staff Regulations and Annex IA to the Staff Regulations, as well as, finally, the principle of legal certainty, the principle of non retroactivity and the applicant's acquired rights and his legitimate expectation. The applicant furthermore submits that Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (1) infringes Article 10 of the Staff Regulations.

The applicant also invokes a violation of the principle of good administration, the principle of due care, the principle of transparency, the principle of good faith and the principle of equal treatment and non discrimination.

---

(1)  OJ L 124, p. 1

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/36

---

Action brought on 26 July 2005 by Arcangelo Milella and Another against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-289/05)

(2005/C 229/76)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 July 2005 by Arcangelo Milella, resident in Niederanven (Luxembourg), and Delfina Campanella, resident in Luxembourg, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the decision of 18 April 2005 of the Director-General for Personnel and Administration of the Commission in so far as it specifies that the d'Hondt rule is a method for allocating seats of representatives of the Local Staff Committee for Luxembourg (LCSL) on the Central Staff Committee (CSC) in accordance with the proportionality principle, and requests the LCSL to bear that rule in mind for the purpose of adopting a new decision as regards the appointment of its members to the CSC; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the decision of 18 April 2005 of the Director-General for Personnel and Administration of the Commission in so far as it specifies that the d'Hondt rule is a method for allocating seats of representatives of the Local Staff Committee for Luxembourg (LCSL) on the Central Staff Committee (CSC) in accordance with the proportionality principle, and requests the LCSL to bear that rule in mind for the purpose of adopting a new decision as regards the appointment of its members to the CSC;

| — | establish the illegality of the decisions of 26 April and 10 May 2005 of the Local Staff Committee for Luxembourg allocating its representatives to the Central Staff Committee in so far as they allocate five seats to list No 2 and two seats to list No 1 in accordance with the d'Hondt method, and not four seats to list No 2 and three seats to list No 1 in accordance with the largest remainder method; |
| --- | --- |

—

establish the illegality of the decisions of 26 April and 10 May 2005 of the Local Staff Committee for Luxembourg allocating its representatives to the Central Staff Committee in so far as they allocate five seats to list No 2 and two seats to list No 1 in accordance with the d'Hondt method, and not four seats to list No 2 and three seats to list No 1 in accordance with the largest remainder method;

| — | annul the decision of 11 May 2005 of the Director-General for Personnel and Administration confirming that the new appointments of its representatives to the Central Staff Committee made by the Local Staff Committee for Luxembourg on 26 April and 10 May 2005 had been properly effected; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 11 May 2005 of the Director-General for Personnel and Administration confirming that the new appointments of its representatives to the Central Staff Committee made by the Local Staff Committee for Luxembourg on 26 April and 10 May 2005 had been properly effected;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The dispute concerns the appointment of representatives of the Local Staff Committee of the Commission in Luxembourg (LCSL) to the Central Staff Committee of the Commission (CSC) following the elections of 24 November 2004. By letter of 18 April 2005, the Director-General of the DG ADMIN of the Commission pointed out to the chairpersons of the LCSL and CSC that he considered the ‘d'Hondt rule’, which is a mathematical method chosen to divide the seats within the CSC amongst the lists put forward for the elections, to be in accordance with the proportionality principle. However, by that same letter, the Director annulled, on separate grounds, the appointments of the representatives to the CSC. Following that letter, the LCSL, on 26 April 2005, appointed new representatives, in accordance with the d'Hondt method.

By letter of 11 May 2005, the Director-General of the DG ADMIN confirmed that he considered those appointments to be in order.

The applicants, officials of the European Commission posted in Luxembourg, contend that those decisions should be annulled. They claim that there has been an infringement of the final paragraph of Article 14 of the Regulations of 27 April 1988 on the composition and functioning of the Staff Committee adopted by the Commission, and of the rule that the allocation of seats within the CSC should be in proportion to the allocation of seats on the LCSL and of the principle that the CSC be representative. The applicants allege that a different method of seat allocation, namely the largest remainder method, should have been adopted and would have resulted in a more representative allocation.

The applicants also contend that the LCSL misused its powers. They submit that the majority of the LCSL sought artificially to increase its representation to the detriment of list No 1, and the Appointing Authority erred in law and committed a manifest error of assessment in approving the use of the d'Hondt method.

The applicants also claim that the Appointing Authority infringed the principle of equal treatment in so far as it departed from its previous practice, under which it considered the largest remainder method to be the only method capable of guaranteeing proportionality.

Finally, the applicants allege that the Appointing Authority infringed the third paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations and Article 16(1) and (2) of the Regulations of the LCSL on the ground that the Appointing Authority forced the LCSL to choose the d'Hondt method or, at least, allowed it to encroach upon the competence of the General Staff Assembly, which is the only body competent to decide upon the applicable method.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/37

---

Action brought on 25 July 2005 by Mohammad Reza Fardoom and Michael Ashbrook against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-291/05)

(2005/C 229/77)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 July 2005 by Mohammed Reza Fardoom, resident in Roodt-sur-Syre (Luxembourg), and Michael Ashbrook, resident in Strassen (Luxembourg), represented by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the decisions of the Head of Unit for ‘Social Dialogue’, adopted on 4 November 2004 and refusing the applicants travel orders, applied for on 9 September 2004, in order to take part in the meeting of 13 September 2004 with a member of the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the decisions of the Head of Unit for ‘Social Dialogue’, adopted on 4 November 2004 and refusing the applicants travel orders, applied for on 9 September 2004, in order to take part in the meeting of 13 September 2004 with a member of the Commission;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants had been invited, as representatives of a trade union organisation, to a meeting held on 13 September 2004 with a member of the Commission. In order to take part in that meeting, the applicants had, beforehand, applied for travel orders. Those applications were not approved by their immediate superior until 41 days later. The authorising officer rejected those applications by reason of that delay.

The applicants claim that the latter decision should be annulled. In support of their action, they contend that there has been an infringement of Article 24a of the Staff Regulations, of the freedom to belong to a trade union, of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, and that the process was arbitrary. In that context, the applicants submit that they lodged their requests within the appropriate time-limit and that they should not be held responsible for the fact that they were approved too late. The applicants also contend that the missions were requested without any expenses and that, accordingly, it was not necessary subsequently to involve the budget of the institution.

The applicants also allege that there has been an infringement of the principle that reasons must be given and of the duty of care owed by the Commission.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/37

---

Action brought on 26 July 2005 by Maria Johansen against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities

(Case T-292/05)

(2005/C 229/78)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 July 2005 by Maria Johansen, resident in Luxembourg, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues and Alice Jaume, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | primarily, set aside the decision of the Appointing Authority of 21 April 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint, adopted together with the Appointment Authority's appointment decision of 27 October 2004, in so far as it fixes her grade, in accordance with Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, and her step in accordance with the current Article 32 of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

primarily, set aside the decision of the Appointing Authority of 21 April 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint, adopted together with the Appointment Authority's appointment decision of 27 October 2004, in so far as it fixes her grade, in accordance with Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, and her step in accordance with the current Article 32 of the Staff Regulations;

| — | set out to the Appointment Authority the effects of the annulment of the contested decisions and, in particular, the regrading of the applicant at grade A*10, step 4, and that with retroactive effect from 1 June 2004, the date on which the appointment decision of 27 October 2004 took effect; |
| --- | --- |

—

set out to the Appointment Authority the effects of the annulment of the contested decisions and, in particular, the regrading of the applicant at grade A*10, step 4, and that with retroactive effect from 1 June 2004, the date on which the appointment decision of 27 October 2004 took effect;

| — | in the alternative, order the Commission to make good the damage suffered by the applicant as a result of not having been graded in A*10, step 4, from 1 June 2004, the date on which the appointment decision of 27 October 2004 took effect; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, order the Commission to make good the damage suffered by the applicant as a result of not having been graded in A*10, step 4, from 1 June 2004, the date on which the appointment decision of 27 October 2004 took effect;

| — | order the defendant to pay the entire costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are identical to those raised in Case T-58/05 Centeno Mediavilla and Others v Commission
   (1).

---

(1)  OJ C 93 of 16.4.2005, p. 38.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/38

---

Action brought on 26 July 2005 by Maurizio Caldarone against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-293/05)

(2005/C 229/79)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 July 2005 by Maurizio Caldarone, resident in Brussels, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues and Alice Jaume, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the decision of the Appointing Authority of 12 April 2005 answering the applicant's complaint and annulling the career development report drawn up for him for the period from 1 January 2003 to 21 August 2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the decision of the Appointing Authority of 12 April 2005 answering the applicant's complaint and annulling the career development report drawn up for him for the period from 1 January 2003 to 21 August 2003;

| — | set out to the Commission the consequences of that annulment, in particular, the annulment of the career development report for 2003 for the subsequent period from 15 September 2003 to 31 December 2003, which was drawn up on the basis of the contested career development report; |
| --- | --- |

—

set out to the Commission the consequences of that annulment, in particular, the annulment of the career development report for 2003 for the subsequent period from 15 September 2003 to 31 December 2003, which was drawn up on the basis of the contested career development report;

| — | establish the non-contractual liability of the European Community incurred by virtue of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

establish the non-contractual liability of the European Community incurred by virtue of the contested decision;

| — | award the applicant damages for the harm suffered, particularly in respect of non-pecuniary damage, in the amount of EUR 3 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

award the applicant damages for the harm suffered, particularly in respect of non-pecuniary damage, in the amount of EUR 3 000;

| — | order the defendant to pay the entire costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official, challenges with the present action his partial career development report for the period from 1 January 2003 to 21 August 2003, by alleging, inter alia, inconsistency between the assessments of the appraiser and the co-appraiser, and manifest errors of assessment. He further contends that there has been an infringement of the duty to give reasons, of the rights of the defence, and of the principles of good administration and legitimate expectations.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/38

---

Action brought on 26 July 2005 by Jean-Marc Colombani against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-294/05)

(2005/C 229/80)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 July 2005 by Jean-Marc Colombani, resident in Brussels, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues and Yola Minatchy, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the Commission's decision of 28 September 2004 determining the applicant's reinstatement as of 1 October 2004, and annul the decision of 21 April 2005 by which the Commission rejected the applicant's complaint brought on 20 December 2004 and requesting that the effective date of reinstatement be fixed retroactively as 1 September 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the Commission's decision of 28 September 2004 determining the applicant's reinstatement as of 1 October 2004, and annul the decision of 21 April 2005 by which the Commission rejected the applicant's complaint brought on 20 December 2004 and requesting that the effective date of reinstatement be fixed retroactively as 1 September 2004;

| — | request the Appointing Authority to give due effect to that annulment, in particular, to fix the effective date of the applicant's reinstatement as 1 September 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

request the Appointing Authority to give due effect to that annulment, in particular, to fix the effective date of the applicant's reinstatement as 1 September 2004;

| — | award the applicant damages in respect of the harm suffered, in the suggested amount of EUR 10 000 by way of material damages and the nominal sum of EUR 1 in damages for non-material harm; |
| --- | --- |

—

award the applicant damages in respect of the harm suffered, in the suggested amount of EUR 10 000 by way of material damages and the nominal sum of EUR 1 in damages for non-material harm;

| — | order the defendant to pay the entire costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Commission, was on leave on personal grounds until 31 August 2004. Having requested to be reinstated at the end of his leave he was reinstated within the DG RELEX by decision of 28 September 2004.

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the reinstatement decision in so far as the latter did not reinstate him with effect from 1 September 2004, the date on which his leave expired. He submits that several posts corresponding to his profile were available within the Commission on that date and that the Commission was thus obliged to reinstate him in one of those posts in accordance with Article 40 of the Staff Regulations. He also contends that there has been an infringement of the Commission's decision of 28 April 2004 on the detailed arrangements for reinstatement on the ground that the Commission did not contact him before the end of his leave and did not, moreover, use the possibility laid down by that decision, namely that of an additional budgetary post, in order to reinstate him. Finally, the applicant submits that there has been an infringement of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care, and he also claims damages, both material and non-material, for the harm which he claims to have suffered.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/39

---

Action brought on 1 August 2005 by Document Security Systems, Inc. against the European Central Bank

(Case T-295/05)

(2005/C 229/81)

Language of the case: English

An action against the European Central Bank was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 August 2005 by Document Security Systems, Inc., established in Rochester, New York (USA), represented by C. Stanbrook, barrister, H. Sheroton and L. Cohen, solicitors, and B. Uphoff, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the ECB has infringed the patent; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the ECB has infringed the patent;

| — | award damages and interest to be paid by the defendant to the applicant, such amounts to be assessed by separate inquiry in respect of the infringing acts; |
| --- | --- |

—

award damages and interest to be paid by the defendant to the applicant, such amounts to be assessed by separate inquiry in respect of the infringing acts;

| — | award damages in lieu of an injunction in respect of banknotes printed for and on behalf of the defendant after the date of the judgement until expiry of the patent (such amounts to be assessed by separate inquiry); |
| --- | --- |

—

award damages in lieu of an injunction in respect of banknotes printed for and on behalf of the defendant after the date of the judgement until expiry of the patent (such amounts to be assessed by separate inquiry);

| — | award costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

award costs;

| — | order such further or other relief as the Court shall determine. |
| --- | --- |

—

order such further or other relief as the Court shall determine.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that his European Patent 0 455 750 B1, entitled ‘Method of making a nonreplicable document’, has been infringed by the defendant and seeks, in accordance with Article 288 EC, an award of damages by way of payment of a reasonable royalty for the use of the invention of the patent.

The invention of the patent consists of a method of designing and printing an original document that combats counterfeiting by digital scanning devices. The method involves determining the scanning pitch of a copying device to be protected against and creating an appropriate grid that would give rise to interference patterns, such as moiré patterns, when copied on that scanning device. The grid is overlayed on an original image to produce a printed genuine document in which the grid is usually not discernible to the naked eye.

According to the applicant, the invention of the patent was used in the designing and the printing of the Euro banknotes, under the authorization of the European Central Bank. The applicant claims furthermore that the issue, keeping and circulation of the Euro banknotes constitutes an infringement of his patent

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/40

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-141/04 (1)

(2005/C 229/82)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

By order of 30 June 2005, the President of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-141/04, Lapin liitto and Others v Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 146 of 29.5.2004.

---

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/40

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-468/04 (1)

(2005/C 229/83)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 29 June 2005, the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-468/04, Kenzo Takada v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 57 of 5.3.2005.

---

III Notices

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/41

---

(2005/C 229/84)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 217, 3.9.2005

Past publications

OJ C 205, 20.8.2005

OJ C 193, 6.8.2005

OJ C 182, 23.7.2005

OJ C 171, 9.7.2005

OJ C 155, 25.6.2005

OJ C 143, 11.6.2005

These texts are available on:

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

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

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

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

---